Choose Heresy

[Kristopher]

…This was a corruption of the true faith. …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…(ii) accepting those errant teachings on the grounds that those spiritual leaders could not err in matters of faith. …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. …

Dear rr1213, et. al.:

You sound confused. True Faith is incorruptible. You cannot corrupt God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit. You are writing not about a “faithful Jew…challenging his spiritual leaders regarding matters of faith…”, rather, you are writing about a “faithful Jew” challenging spiritual leaders regarding matters of their own lack, or loss of faith. You present us not with a dilemma, but with a contradiction: how can it be possible that a “faithful Jew” could challenge “…those spiritual leaders [whom] could not err in matters of faith. …”? A faithful Jew would never challange an inerrant spiritual leader; it is absurd–oh sure, there would be the exceptions: humor, and an argument to prove a point demonstrative of the absurdity of such a challenge, but you are writing too seriously about this, for those exceptions to be valid.

You sound very much like it is too difficult for you to accept that The Catholic Faith is incorruptible–it is incorruptible; how can it be any other way? Scripture is sufficient for reproof, for correction, for teaching–it would be right to use scripture to correct those in error, to teach those in error, and as reproof, to validate the truths, the lessons provided in it. Nonetheless, we must have a correct interpretation of scripture. To whom must we go for a correct interpretation of scripture? Were all Protestant sects true in their claim that their understanding that their interpretation of scripture is true, they would be Catholic–were there only one sect among Protestants that held a correct interpretation of scripture, it would have to reconcile itself to God and therefore, end the schism and become Catholic; to whom must we go for an accurate, clear, precise interpretation of scripture?

The Holy Spirit inspired the authors of scripture. What were the authors of scripture? The Septuagint was authored by seventy-two of the finest Hebrew scholars, each of the twelve tribes of Judea as commanded by Alexander the Great gave six of their finest “theologians” to write The Septuagint. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Septuagint was quoted over three hundred times by Jesus according to The New Testament (NT), The Vulgate, written in Latin, and yes, some quotes come from those Catholic books in the Old Testament (OT), directly attributed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit–to Jesus, which always have been there, as the Apocrypha. (Hopefully, I did spell that word “apocrypha” correctly.). Let me interrupt this for a moment–how can it be true, what you say, “…written scriptures are a standard to which later traditions and teachings can be compared, to ensure that no error has crept into those teachings. …”? This cannot be true of any Protestant Bible, right? It cannot be true, because some seven books in the Old Testament have been taken out by those Pharisees of Jesus’ time–how can you have a clear, accurate, let alone precise understanding of the history as it concerns Judaism, without every book of the OT? You cannot. The history of the OT without The Apocrypha is changed, without them and in fact, it was changed by the Phariseeies of Jesus’ day, and it is their Bible, not the Bible, the OT used by Jesus, which Protestants to this day use. My information came from a few books, a series of them, I believe they are titled: “Apologetics for Beginners”.

Now, you are placing us in this position to accept that The Catholic Church is teaching us heresy, officially–please explain: how can this be done–how can it be what is incorruptible, can be corrupted?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[rr1213]

Kristopher,
The Catholic Church teaches that it cannot err regarding matters of faith and morals, that the Holy Spirit will actively prevent the Church from teaching heresy. I don’t believe that to be true for a number of reasons. One reason that I cited was the example of Mark 7:6 where the religious leaders of the day were, indeed, teaching error and were admonished by Jesus for doing so. Moreover, the Old Testament is full of examples where the Jewish people…the chosen people of God, mind you, with whom God himself entered into covenants…fell away from God and their leaders taught heresy. With these examples from Scripture before us, it convinces me that the Catholic Church is overstating its case. That’s why I think that the question of the OP, do we “choose heresy” or “choose schism” when confronted with heresy is applicable to those of the Catholic faith as well as the Episcopal and other Protestant Churches.
RR1213

 

[RobNY]

Dear rr,

I believe the problem is a false problem, but for reasons other than what the posters here have suggested. The reason given to choose heresy over schism is that it does not wound the Body of Christ (which Catholics rightly emphasize). The problem is that heresy does wound the Body of Christ greviously.

The Catechism states:

**817 **In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin: Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
[my emphasis added]

Heresy, apostasy and schism-- all wounds to the body of Christ. If we want to preserve the unity of the body of Christ, we can choose none of them.

Since all three sins wound the body of Christ, one would then be forced to make a judgment as to which wounds the body of Christ the least. I don’t think that can be weighed by an ordinary human being-- we do not have the foresight or knowledge to adequately do so. In Catholic thinking choosing any evil is out of the question, which makes it a moot point.

-Rob

 

[Victorious]

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…

Oh, no. Once you concede that there is a difference between being unfaithful in practice and failing to preserve the faith, you have laid down a philosophical plank from which there is no retreating. You can no longer use unfaithful practices as proof that the Church – as distinguished from particular individuals within the church – errs in matters of doctrine.

[SIGN]1 Timothy :14-15: I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.[/SIGN]

And you are not going to get away with trotting out that tired old argument out of Mark 7. In the first place, you wrongly imply that the Church relies solely on oral tradition. This is blatantly false. It is the Church who gave the Scriptures to the world: the very contents of the New Testament canon are a matter of sacred Tradition, there being no divinely inspired table of contents. In the second place, your whole Mark 7 argument falls to the ground under the weight of other, highly inconvenient Scriptures that Protestants habitually ignore:

1 Corinthians 11:2:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 1:15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Timothy 2:1-2:

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from be before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach other also.

Sola scriptura is the ultimate tradition of man. 2 Peter 1:20-21:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

2 Peter 3:15-17:

…Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

 

[rr1213]

Dear rr,

I believe the problem is a false problem, but for reasons other than what the posters here have suggested. The reason given to choose heresy over schism is that it does not wound the Body of Christ (which Catholics rightly emphasize). The problem is that heresy does wound the Body of Christ greviously.

The Catechism states:

Heresy, apostasy and schism-- all wounds to the body of Christ. If we want to preserve the unity of the body of Christ, we can choose none of them.

Since all three sins wound the body of Christ, one would then be forced to make a judgment as to which wounds the body of Christ the least. I don’t think that can be weighed by an ordinary human being-- we do not have the foresight or knowledge to adequately do so. In Catholic thinking choosing any evil is out of the question, which makes it a moot point.

-Rob

Truly interesting thought…heresy, schism and apostacy all wound the Body of Christ…but equally? What does one do when the heresy surrounds you, such as the situation addressed by Bishop Lee? After all, not everyone has the luxury of membership in the Catholic Church which, we have been told, has never taught heresy.

 

[rr1213]

Oh, no. Once you concede that there is a difference between being unfaithful in practice and failing to preserve the faith, you have laid down a philosophical plank from which there is no retreating. You can no longer use unfaithful practices as proof that the Church – as distinguished from particular individuals within the church – errs in matters of doctrine.

[SIGN]1 Timothy :14-15: I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.[/SIGN]

And you are not going to get away with trotting out that tired old argument out of Mark 7. In the first place, you wrongly imply that the Church relies solely on oral tradition. This is blatantly false. It is the Church who gave the Scriptures to the world: the very contents of the New Testament canon are a matter of sacred Tradition, there being no divinely inspired table of contents. In the second place, your whole Mark 7 argument falls to the ground under the weight of other, highly inconvenient Scriptures that Protestants habitually ignore:

1 Corinthians 11:2: 2 Thessalonians 1:15: 2 Timothy 2:1-2: Sola scriptura is the ultimate tradition of man. 2 Peter 1:20-21: 2 Peter 3:15-17:

Well, I decline to walk that plank. Certainly, the Scriptures and our own experiences tell us that there are many who are unfaithful in practice, even though their teaching may be orthodox. “Do what I say, not what I do.” It is an open question as to what is the greatest “teacher” in those cases, the hypocrite’s words or actions. “Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words.” Nonethess, this dichotomy is different from what I had been discussing.

What is meant by “failing to preserve the faith”? If you preserve the Scriptures and oral traditions, yet add on to these additional heretical teachings, have you failed to preserve the faith? I don’t know, I see a distinction there also.

Further, what is the common denominator in the bibilical passages that you cited? It is the instruction to preserve the traditions as given by the apostles. These traditions at issue are oral and non-canonical by nature. The only way that we can be certain that the traditions taught today are the same as, or at least consistent with, what was taught by the Apostles is to look at written Scripture. Scripture is the measuring rod by which we can determine if a teaching is inspired by God. Why do you think God inspired the writings of the Apostles and preserved them through the ages? If tradition handed down orally is sufficient, there would be no need of the written word.

Also, I never once said or implied that the Catholic Church relies solely on oral tradition. You’ve created a strawman there, my friend, because that is not what I said. Look at my posts more closely. We both know that the Catholic Church relies, in varying degrees, on written Scripture as well as Holy Tradition and Reason.

What’s so “tired” about the argument out of Mark 7? It is one of the biblical passages that bears the most directly on the question. You don’t think that I’ve misquoted the passage, do you? Presumably, Jesus knew of what he was speaking. Tell me how it is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[jmcrae]

Truly interesting thought…heresy, schism and apostacy all wound the Body of Christ…but equally? What does one do when the heresy surrounds you, such as the situation addressed by Bishop Lee? After all, not everyone has the luxury of membership in the Catholic Church which, we have been told, has never taught heresy.

The Covenant of the New Testament is different than any other, in that it comes with the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide it and protect it from all error.

The First Pentecost wasn’t just a light show: it was the sealing of the Holy Spirit on to the Church, and from that moment on, the Apostles and all their successors up until the present day became unable to teach any error of faith and morals.

They weren’t protected from having false personal opinions, and they weren’t protected from doing dumb things or committing sins - but they can’t teach error. The Holy Spirit won’t let them. If a Pope ever tried to teach as a matter of doctrine something that was a heresy, he would either be struck dumb or (if he was persistent) he would just be taken right out of the game.

Notice how our most sinful Popes never gave any sermons, nor taught anything at all in public. That’s the Holy Spirit at work, protecting the Church from error.

 

[rr1213]

The Covenant of the New Testament is different than any other, in that it comes with the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide it and protect it from all error.

The New Testament is certainly different from the Old Testament in many ways. Is the new covenant also different from the old in preventing religious leaders of today (say the Catholic Church) from ever preaching heresy? That’s really the crux of the question, isn’t it? I’d say “no”. I think that we’ve been given the promise that the truth will always be taught, that there will always be a remnant of true disciples, that, in the end, God’s will shall triumph, but not that every component of the church will always speak the truth under all circumstances.

 

[jmcrae]

The New Testament is certainly different from the Old Testament in many ways. Is the new covenant also different from the old in preventing religious leaders of today (say the Catholic Church) from ever preaching heresy?

Yes, as we see with Christ’s repeated promises of the coming of the Holy Spirit, and with the spectacular event of His coming at Pentecost.

If the purpose of the Holy Spirit is not to do what Christ was doing when He started the Church - guiding and training its leaders, teaching them how to celebrate the Sacraments, preventing them from preaching errors to the people, reminding them of what they had been taught before - then why is He with us? Just to give us nice, warm feelings about religion? Or to occasionally overcome someone with the gift of tongues, or what have you?

 

[Victorious]

Well, I decline to walk that plank. Certainly, the Scriptures and our own experiences tell us that there are many who are unfaithful in practice, even though their teaching may be orthodox. “Do what I say, not what I do.” It is an open question as to what is the greatest “teacher” in those cases, the hypocrite’s words or actions. “Preach the Gospel, if necessary use words.” Nonethess, this dichotomy is different from what I had been discussing.

What is meant by “failing to preserve the faith”? If you preserve the Scriptures and oral traditions, yet add on to these additional heretical teachings, have you failed to preserve the faith? I don’t know, I see a distinction there also.

Further, what is the common denominator in the bibilical passages that you cited? It is the instruction to preserve the traditions as given by the apostles. These traditions at issue are oral and non-canonical by nature. The only way that we can be certain that the traditions taught today are the same as, or at least consistent with, what was taught by the Apostles is to look at written Scripture. Scripture is the measuring rod by which we can determine if a teaching is inspired by God. Why do you think God inspired the writings of the Apostles and preserved them through the ages? If tradition handed down orally is sufficient, there would be no need of the written word.

And how were the earliest Christians supposed to test a teaching against Scripture, when Scripture wasn’t yet complete? Did those who lived closest to the time of Christ wallow in error?

Incidentally, how can you know the canon of Scripture is closed, since nothing in Scripture says so? And how can you know that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle? These are matters of the sacred Tradition that you reject. What stops you taking personal judgment as far as the Mormons have, who came up with scriptures of their own?

Also, I never once said or implied that the Catholic Church relies solely on oral tradition. You’ve created a strawman there, my friend, because that is not what I said. Look at my posts more closely. We both know that the Catholic Church relies, in varying degrees, on written Scripture as well as Holy Tradition and Reason.

Here’s what you said that contains the implication, together with the context:

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.

What’s so “tired” about the argument out of Mark 7? It is one of the biblical passages that bears the most directly on the question. You don’t think that I’ve misquoted the passage, do you? Presumably, Jesus knew of what he was speaking. Tell me how it is not relevant to the discussion.

What’s tired about it is that (a) it’s been refuted over and over; (b) it’s fallacious to conclude, from Jesus’ condemnation of some traditions, that He is condemning all traditions; and (c) the Protestant interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture as a whole, and especially the passages I gave you above.

 

[Letchitsa1]

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.

Keeping in mind that there were several anti-Popes throughout the history of the Church, what is your proof that the Pope was in heresy?

Catholic-resources.org says the following with regards to the Council of Nicea, which specifically addressed the Arian heresy:

At the decree of Pope St. Sylvester I and the Emperor Constantine the General Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD in order to quell the Arian controversy, which had begun approximately seven years earlier. Arius, a priest from Alexandria, after whom the heresy of “Arianism” is named, taught that the Logos (the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) is not Divine, but is rather the most perfect and first of God the Father’s creatures. Three hundred and eighteen bishops, along with the pope’s legates and the emperor, assembled in Nicaea in order to define clearly and forever the Church’s doctrine on the Divinity of Christ (the Incarnate Logos) and also to anathematize the Arian heresy. In addition to this chief task of dealing with the Arian heresy, the Council of Nicaea also promulgated many disciplinary canons on a variety of matters. Some of the better known persons who attended and participated at this Council are St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eusebius of Nicomedia, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. This Council is doctrinally significant for its explicit definition of the Divinity of the Son of God, Who, the Council professes, is of one nature or substance with God the Father. This Council also definitively condemned any theology that holds that the Divine Nature is mutable or subject to change of any sort.

By this it sounds to me that the Pope specifically did not believe in the Arian heresy. The full link can be found here: catholic-resources.org/John/Patristics-Councils.html

Another good book that addresses this issue is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. In this book, David Currie addresses all the major heresies down through the ages and the stances that each of the major Church fathers took at the time. Of interest to note in his chart is that the true Pope never once taught heresy while he was pope, although there were a couple of instances that were really close calls–i.e., they taught heresy up until they became Pope, at which point they recanted their heretical positions.

 

[rr1213]

And how were the earliest Christians supposed to test a teaching against Scripture, when Scripture wasn’t yet complete? Did those who lived closest to the time of Christ wallow in error?

Of course not, although Revelation does mention several churches who “got it wrong” even during the time of the Apostles and, moreover, many of the Apostles’ letters were written to correct false teaching and sinful living in the early churches. Still, the earliest Christians had the luxury of the Apostles living amongst them with whom they could consult for proper teaching. As to those who followed the earliest Christians, they could rely on the writings of the Apostles (New Testament Books) as well as the Old Testament.

Incidentally, how can you know the canon of Scripture is closed, since nothing in Scripture says so? And how can you know that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle? These are matters of the sacred Tradition that you reject. What stops you taking personal judgment as far as the Mormons have, who came up with scriptures of their own?

What makes you think that all Protestants reject all Sacred Tradition? At the time that the Scriptures were canonized, we were a united Church. Neither the Orthodox nor the Protestants had yet broken from the Catholic Church (or the Catholic Church broken from them, depending on who you listen to). It is not that I (or many other Protestants for that matter) don’t accept tradition to any degree; but we do reject it when it appears inconsistent with the written Word. So, yes, we place the Scripture over Tradition. (You, of course, will say that there is no contradiction between the two).

Here’s what you said that contains the implication, together with the context:

***Maybe, I suppose I can see how you could read it that way although I would have thought that the context would indicate otherwise. ***

What’s tired about [Mark 7] is that (a) it’s been refuted over and over; (b) it’s fallacious to conclude, from Jesus’ condemnation of some traditions, that He is condemning all traditions; and (c) the Protestant interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture as a whole, and especially the passages I gave you above.

Well, I haven’t seen it refuted here…it seems to be directly on point. I agree that it is fallacious to conclude that Jesus’ condemnation of some of the Jews’ traditions means that he is condemning all traditions. I did not say that. Jesus, however, was condemning those traditions which were unscriptural. I’ve already addressed your last comment above…

 

[rr1213]

Keeping in mind that there were several anti-Popes throughout the history of the Church, what is your proof that the Pope was in heresy?

Catholic-resources.org says the following with regards to the Council of Nicea, which specifically addressed the Arian heresy:

At the decree of Pope St. Sylvester I and the Emperor Constantine the General Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD in order to quell the Arian controversy, which had begun approximately seven years earlier. Arius, a priest from Alexandria, after whom the heresy of “Arianism” is named, taught that the Logos (the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) is not Divine, but is rather the most perfect and first of God the Father’s creatures. Three hundred and eighteen bishops, along with the pope’s legates and the emperor, assembled in Nicaea in order to define clearly and forever the Church’s doctrine on the Divinity of Christ (the Incarnate Logos) and also to anathematize the Arian heresy. In addition to this chief task of dealing with the Arian heresy, the Council of Nicaea also promulgated many disciplinary canons on a variety of matters. Some of the better known persons who attended and participated at this Council are St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eusebius of Nicomedia, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. This Council is doctrinally significant for its explicit definition of the Divinity of the Son of God, Who, the Council professes, is of one nature or substance with God the Father. This Council also definitively condemned any theology that holds that the Divine Nature is mutable or subject to change of any sort.

By this it sounds to me that the Pope specifically did not believe in the Arian heresy. The full link can be found here: catholic-resources.org/John/Patristics-Councils.html

Another good book that addresses this issue is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. In this book, David Currie addresses all the major heresies down through the ages and the stances that each of the major Church fathers took at the time. Of interest to note in his chart is that the true Pope never once taught heresy while he was pope, although there were a couple of instances that were really close calls–i.e., they taught heresy up until they became Pope, at which point they recanted their heretical positions.

I can’t confess to being an expert on the Arian heresy, although I thought I had read somewhere that the great majority of the bishops at the time fell into the heresy and that the Pope did likewise. Whether the Pope authoritatively taught the heresy, as opposed to believing in it personally, I don’t know. Perhaps I am wrong with the particulars, I’ll have to look more closely. I was trying to forumulate an example that Catholics might be able to contemplate and the Arian controversy seems to be one of the times where the Church as a whole came closest to “losing it”.

 

[jmcrae]

I can’t confess to being an expert on the Arian heresy, although I thought I had read somewhere that the great majority of the bishops at the time fell into the heresy and that the Pope did likewise.

No - in fact one of the evidences that the Bishop of Rome is infallible is that he vigorously opposed the Arian heresy, and as a result, the Arian heresy remained in the East, never spread to the West at all, and was ultimately overturned altogether.

 

[Letchitsa1]

From the History of Christendom Series, by Warren H. Carroll, the following Church bishops fell into the Arian heresy, looking at four of the ancienct sees, Rome, Antioch, Constantinople and Alexandria:

Rome: None
**Antioch: **Paulinus, Eulalius, Euphronius, Flaccillus, Stephen I, Leonitus, Eudoxius, and Ammonius
Constantinople: Eusebius, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Demophilus
Alexandria: None

In the years 512-518, **every **bishopric in the Church had been overtaken by heresy (specifically Monophysitism) except the bishopric of Rome. This heresy taught that Jesus has only one nature, the divine. Vigilius was the only pope that actually supported this heresy, but it is interesting to note that it was only while he was acting as an anti-pope after the death of St. Agapetus, that he actually embraced that heresy. Once he was elected pope, he changed his views to those of his predecessors. The book I have mentioned in several other posts, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, discusses Pope Vigilius’ role in this heresy at length. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Vigilius can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm, but I can’t attest to how much it addresses his role in this heresy prior to becoming pope.

And of course, if you’re interested in reading more about the heresy of monophysitism, the Catholic Encyclopedia link is: newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm

 

[RobNY]

Truly interesting thought…heresy, schism and apostacy all wound the Body of Christ…but equally?

It is impossible to weigh out which particular instance of heresy, apostasy or schism is worse than another. One could perhaps say, ‘it is worse to lead two people into heresy than just to fall into heresy onself.’ Or again, one could say, ‘it is worse to bring another person into schism with yourself than just to go into schism oneself.’ Or again, ‘it is worse to apostasize and bring others into ones apostasy than to just apostasize oneself.’

But can one say, ‘it is worse to go into schism oneself than to go into heresy oneself?’ How does one measure the one against the other? They are incommensurable, at least from our point of view. Certainly any willful heretic, schismatic or apostasizer has commited a mortal sin. But that’s about all we know.

I do not think they are equal-- or at least not intrinsincally so. Particular instances may be equal. But I do not think that we as human beings can measure the relative value of each, except in sketch-- and only then by obvious fruits of said heresy, schism or apostasy and with theh aid of much hindsight (for instance, although I wish to avoid such an issue, one could look back at the schism and heresy of the Protestant Reformation and, in general, say it is better or worse than another schism or heresy, say, of a very minor variety). Even that is very limited, and is in no ways able to decide a question in the here and now. It can only make a judgment about what has happened.

So, one can either look in the abstract (my first examples) or with hindsight (my second example), but deciding about what course of action to take? Not sure that can be done.

What does one do when the heresy surrounds you, such as the situation addressed by Bishop Lee?

Perhaps we should study the Church during the Arian period to see what one does when ‘heresy surrounds’ it. It is certainly tough going. I pray that I may not undergo the test.

I also think it is necessary that one do neither. Admittedly, if you do not believe that the Church is is exempt from error in doctrine, then avoiding both heresy and schism is going to be a very difficult thing. Hence why it is a problem for Protestants, and somewhat perplexing to the Catholics on these boards.

After all, not everyone has the luxury of membership in the Catholic Church which, we have been told, has never taught heresy.

I do think there is much to be said for clinging to the apostolic faith while taking refuge under the pillar and bulwark of the truth-- but then I’d be speaking in cliches and we’d be talking past one another.

-Rob

 

[Kristopher]

…The Catholic Church teaches that it cannot err regarding matters of faith and morals, that the Holy Spirit will actively prevent the Church from teaching heresy. I don’t believe that to be true for a number of reasons. One reason that I cited was the example of Mark 7:6 where the religious leaders of the day were, indeed, teaching error and were admonished by Jesus for doing so. …

Dear rr1213, et. al.:

Have you any specific example of a particular teaching either with respect to morals, or to doctrine within the Catholic Church, which you find to be an error?

You still sound to me that you are remaining confused about heresy–you claim to be Protestant and therefore, you belong to a church with a history no older than some 400 years; originating from a Catholic, Martin Luther, who in fact has been, is and chose to remain a heretic; so, we know that Catholics have been convicted of heresy, and a number of them prior to Martin Luther were burned at the stake; whereas, among Protestants, say, Queen Mary, a number of Catholics were beheaded, and the same is true of Henry VIII: maybe you find teachings given by Martin Luther and Henry VIII and the beheadings of Queen Mary to be something else other than heretical?

Whatever opposition you might have against heresy; it would seem hypocritical of you to remain on the side of a Church, though Christian, both schismatic and heretical.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[ComradeAndrei]

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 Catholic Church-on the brink of destruction for 2,000 yrs.

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 is not a very Catholic way to think. “Hubris”?! How about revealed Truth-and acceptance of this revealed Truth is the very epitome of humility. Saying “I dunno” boils down to “I have to decide what is truth, ME, ME, ME!!!” That isn’t hubris?

Concerning the comparison of the Catholic Church with the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ time-apples and oranges. Completely different things, the Old Testament was the begining of the New Testament and the New Testament is the perfection of the Old. Could the Pharisees been wrong? Of course, they weren’t infallible. When Jesus set up the Church, this is the final dispensation, the final “act” so to say. This was Revelation in its fullest, all that God wishes to reveal to us has been already given to us in the Deposit of Faith. This is the vital difference between Israel and the Church, Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem-God gave to Israel the “fullness” of revelation appropriate to God’s plan but not all that He had to give. He spoke all He has to speak to us in the person of Christ Jesus-OT Israel didn’t have Him.

 

[Ender]

The New Testament is certainly different from the Old Testament in many ways. Is the new covenant also different from the old in preventing religious leaders of today (say the Catholic Church) from ever preaching heresy? That’s really the crux of the question, isn’t it?

Yes, that is the right question and is why Mark 7:6 is not relevant. The issue is whether the Church founded by Christ is protected from dogmatic error. Whether or not the earlier Jewish faith was so protected is not relevant to that question.

rr1213:

I’d say “no”. I think that we’ve been given the promise that the truth will always be taught, that there will always be a remnant of true disciples, that, in the end, God’s will shall triumph, but not that every component of the church will always speak the truth under all circumstances.

You’re wiggling here. The claim is not made that every component of the Church will always speak the truth under all circumstances. Infallibility is much more limited and means that the Church is “preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals” (Catholic encyclopedia). Before you decide to accept or reject the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility it is useful to know exactly what she means by it.

Ender

 

[rr1213]

Dear rr1213, et. al.:

Have you any specific example of a particular teaching either with respect to morals, or to doctrine within the Catholic Church, which you find to be an error?

I don’t really want to get into those particulars here because it would just derail the thread. Suffice it to say that on most issues that Catholics believe Protestants to be in error, most Protestants believe Catholics to be in error…the flip side of the coin so to say.

You still sound to me that you are remaining confused about heresy–you claim to be Protestant and therefore, you belong to a church with a history no older than some 400 years; originating from a Catholic, Martin Luther, who in fact has been, is and chose to remain a heretic; so, we know that Catholics have been convicted of heresy, and a number of them prior to Martin Luther were burned at the stake; whereas, among Protestants, say, Queen Mary, a number of Catholics were beheaded, and the same is true of Henry VIII: maybe you find teachings given by Martin Luther and Henry VIII and the beheadings of Queen Mary to be something else other than heretical?

I don’t think that I am confused about heresy; I think that we disagree on who, and what, is heretical…on some issues at least. We probably agree on others.

Whatever opposition you might have against heresy; it would seem hypocritical of you to remain on the side of a Church, though Christian, both schismatic and heretical.

Not sure that I follow you here…