Hegesippus-Great Apostasy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianH

Guest
St. Hegesippus
Writing around 150 AD
earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation,11 they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching “knowledge falsely so called.”
Click to expand...
Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching.15 Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts16 through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ…
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
This makes no sense. Hegesippus is talking about the groups that *rejected *the emerging “Catholicism.” You can’t use that to argue that Catholicism itself was apostate.

Edwin
Click to expand...
He said the church had been corrupted. I do not believe he is contending it is free from error. He is not saying these groups have fully seperated from the church. Yes, he specifically mentions the groups but we do not know, despite writings that attest to a degree of their influence and thoughts, the full extent of which of their teachings could have slipped into the church.
Do we?
BH
 
But but most importantly
Did early Christians THINK the church could never be corrupted like Catholics are contending?
 
Alternate teachings were there from the beginning like with the Judaizers and Simon Magus.
stjulie
 
st_julie said:
Alternate teachings were there from the beginning like with the Judaizers and Simon Magus.
stjulie
Click to expand...
DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON THAT 😃 Judaizers!
Of all the whacky theories out there, the very first time I read the New Testament, I wondered if Paul and the Apostles were on the same page!! Of course I know they were, it would be unthinkable that the bumbling portrayal of the Apostles, written after Paul’s letters, and the tension between the Apostles and Paul was something of substance. That would mean that the role of his brother James would be understated in the New Testament due to the influence of Paul’s school. That would mean elaborate Virgin birth myths would have to be developed to show he was not just a man. That would lead to a heretical belief that somehow Christianity was actually Pauline Christianity and that the Ebionites were essentially correct! No, i am 99% United Methodist 😃
One percent Judaizer, uh…gentile Judaizer.
 
BrianH said:
He said the church had been corrupted. I do not believe he is contending it is free from error. He is not saying these groups have fully seperated from the church. Yes, he specifically mentions the groups but we do not know, despite writings that attest to a degree of their influence and thoughts, the full extent of which of their teachings could have slipped into the church.
Do we?
BH
Click to expand...
If you’re basing your argument on the impossibility of proving a negative, you are welcome to whatever empty victory you can get from that. If you actually care about evidence, then a cursory glance at the literature will show you that early Catholicism defined itself over against precisely these groups. If you think their influence seeped in, you need to give an example and provide some evidence. If anything, the evidence is on the other foot–Ignatius, for instance, mentions groups who appear to be Gnostics and criticizes them for not believing in the Real Presence. There are disturbing Gnostic elements in large sectors of Protestantism, particularly with regard to the Sacraments. (Obviously this isn’t a historic connection but the reappearance of an old tendency.)

I think at this point the question has to be: why do you want so desperately to believe in the Great Apostacy that you are willing to take a criticism of groups heretical by Catholic standards as evidence that Catholicism became heretical?

You do have a case that Hegesippus’s language is much less perfectionist than that of later Catholics. In other words, he speaks of error as something that can exist within the Church and he speaks of the Church as divisible. But if anything that works in favor of the “mainline” position that is the default for both of us at the moment–i.e., a realistic recognition that the Church on earth is messy and is going to have error and division while still remaining the true Church.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Oh I don’t know that I need to believe it Edwin I am just kicking the tires before I buy anything. Or I don’t.
 
BrianH said:
Oh I don’t know that I need to believe it Edwin I am just kicking the tires before I buy anything. Or I don’t.
Click to expand...
So…
Look at the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna there’s quite a bit of discussion of people who rejected or tried to preach and teach things that were wrong.

St. John in Revelation speaks of those who profess but are not.

There has never been a time when the church has not been under some sort of attack, but if you try to prove that negative, (Like Contarini pointed out) you get an empty victory and a load of doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top