E
EphelDuath
Guest
For example; was Arianism a heresy the moment it was born, or was it only formally anti-Catholic the moment the Council of Nicaea codified the doctrine of the Trinity?
- Status
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
A heresy is something that contradicts established Church doctrine. So Arianism was originally just a (incorrect) theological opinion.
However, it is not absolutely necessary that the doctrine in question has been formally defined. There are ideas which are clearly contrary to *de Fide *understanding. For example, if someone claimed that Jesus was a transvestite, he could be called a heretic even though the Church has never formally defined otherwise.
Some might claim that Arianism contradicted de Fide. But, given the extent of that heresy (and other heresies related to the precise nature of Christ) I would find it hard to agree.
S
Soutane
Guest
It was not a Heresy until it was declared so,but it certainly was heretical.
A
AndyF
Guest
EphelDuath:
The way I see it heresy is a charge. An untruth is intrinsically so and stands on it’s own demerit. Something becomes heresy if one resolves to promulgate the negative of that law, or the untruth. In order to become true heresy, some theologians believe one needs to work at it. It is believed the act must be consummated through determined attempts to win people over to the falsity. I think the intent to better one’s faith needs to be measured against his obstinate stance which is usually against a facet of dogma, and not the entirety.
In my view, although not spiritually healthy, the common lay individual who simply makes a personal protest or point due to limited human reasoning is at a crossroad and merely manifesting a temporary milestone in his journey in faith (St. Paul, maturing faith). There is still a good chance he will gain the graced resources eventually to see the light, although it may look hopeless now.
The common phrasing, “if anyone believes…(text) … then let him become anathema” seems extreme and makes the statement that acceptance in stages is not permissible.
This condemning sentence is meant to be extreme, as any heretic is now subject to excommunication processes, and in 98% of the cases would fault an individual at a milestone in his ascent to maturity.
Many reputable Christians have gone through these dark phases on their journey.
M2C
Andy
The way I see it heresy is a charge. An untruth is intrinsically so and stands on it’s own demerit. Something becomes heresy if one resolves to promulgate the negative of that law, or the untruth. In order to become true heresy, some theologians believe one needs to work at it. It is believed the act must be consummated through determined attempts to win people over to the falsity. I think the intent to better one’s faith needs to be measured against his obstinate stance which is usually against a facet of dogma, and not the entirety.
In my view, although not spiritually healthy, the common lay individual who simply makes a personal protest or point due to limited human reasoning is at a crossroad and merely manifesting a temporary milestone in his journey in faith (St. Paul, maturing faith). There is still a good chance he will gain the graced resources eventually to see the light, although it may look hopeless now.
The common phrasing, “if anyone believes…(text) … then let him become anathema” seems extreme and makes the statement that acceptance in stages is not permissible.
This condemning sentence is meant to be extreme, as any heretic is now subject to excommunication processes, and in 98% of the cases would fault an individual at a milestone in his ascent to maturity.
Many reputable Christians have gone through these dark phases on their journey.
M2C
Andy
L
Lock_Down
Guest
My example would be the Shepherd of Hermas. It includes the heresy of adoptionism, but the text existed for quite some time before it was called heretical. I’d argue that the Shepherd of Hermas contained heresy that was heretical well before any Church council called it as such- as soon as it was written, in fact.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
There is a great mathematician named Marian Mersenne (who was also a French monk and priest in the Fransciscian tradition), who described a whole class of prime numbers which are still named in his honor (the Mersenne Primes – any prime number that can be expressed as 2[sup]n[/sup]-1).
Mersenne claimed that the huge Mersenne number, 2[sup]67[/sup]-1, would be prime. He did not know it at the time, and nobody else did until more than a quarter of a millennium, but he was teaching mathematical heresy.
In 1903, a Columbia University professor named Frank Nelson Cole made a presentation before the American Mathematical Society which was called “On the Factoring of Large Numbers.” After being introduced, he approached a chalkboard and worked out, by hand, the huge number 2[sup]67[/sup]-1.
Cole went to another chalkboard and worked out, by hand, the product of 193,707,721 and 761,838,257,287, and then Cole returned to his seat. The numbers matched. Cole had proved Mersenne wrong. During his presentation, Cole did not speak a single word.
Cole received a standing ovation for his work – the first and only standing ovation ever delivered by the audience of the American Mathematical Society.
When Mersenne asserted that 2[sup]67[/sup]-1 was a prime number, he was wrong – he was a mathematical heretic from the very moment he spoke that assertion. Many mathematicians believed him, until hundreds of years later, when he was finally proved wrong.
Mersenne was not *ever *correct, even though he had not yet been proven wrong. He was a mathematical heretic from the beginning. The Truth was always out there, but it had not yet been revealed.
If someone asserts a false doctrine, he is a heretic from that very moment. However, it is very possible that this heresy incurs no sin (especially if the heresy seems plausible). If the doctrine is exposed by the Church as false (as Mersenne’s claim was exposed by Cole) and the person yet persists, then he is a heretic AND a sinner.
N
neophyte
Guest
The Church defines heresy as “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”. So it seems to me that your assertion is a bit oversimplified, in that it does not account for the required act of the will.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
You must have overlooked my last paragraph.
N
neophyte
Guest
Not at all.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Therefore, a person is not a heretic who holds some belief until The Church has defined that it must be believed by the Catholic Faithful.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
No - a person who holds and teaches a patently absurd doctrine would be a heretic from the beginning. Let’s say that someone taught that Jesus was a practicing homosexual, and the Apostles were really his “harem.” We don’t need to wait for the whole of the Catholic Church to make a judgment upon this absurd matter - the local Bishop has full authority to declare this as heresy and to censure the person teaching it.
But it becomes more difficult if the heresy is not so obviously opposed to Catholic doctrine (even if the doctrine has not been formally defined - as would be the case in my absurd example). Arius was perhaps the most significant heretic of all time, but it would have been hard to label him as such until the Council of Nicea formally refuted his teachings.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Exactly my point. I was trying to be succinct. Thank you for stating it more clearly than I did.Ignatius:
it becomes more difficult if the heresy is not so obviously opposed to Catholic doctrine (even if the doctrine has not been formally defined - as would be the case in my absurd example). Arius was perhaps the most significant heretic of all time, but it would have been hard to label him as such until the Council of Nicea formally refuted his teachings.
N
NHInsider
Guest
I would disagree, although it may be only semantics. I think heresy implies sinful obstinance, rather than simply being in error (as with recent statements about the separated brethren).
- Status