Heresies from the East?

[Rawb]

It was probably a local council. They’re not uncommon at all. It could not have been an ecumenical council because the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture is not the one used by everybody. I know the Ethiopians, who would’ve still been in Communion with Rome at the time, have a very different Canon.

 

[Wandile]

The Catholic Church does not list this council as one of the Ecumenical Councils; the first such council held in Rome was the First Lateran Council in 1123. The council in 382 was held the year after the First Council of Constantinople, and has been labeled a general council or synod, and apparently did not have Church wide participation (It appears that Pope Damasus had several such synods or councils in Rome during his pontificate). Nor is there any official record of the proceedings. So we don’t know if deciding scripture was the only purpose of it, or if any such decision was actually made at the council.

Oh you meant ecumenical councils? Then I take my statement about the council of Rome back sorry about that

 

[dzheremi]

I thought it was agreed that the Roman Catholic Church did not finalize its canon of scripture until the Council of Trent, in response to Protestant tampering with books that had been considered canonical for centuries. As far as I know, the earliest example of the modern 27-book NT canon that would familiar to most Western Christians actually comes to us from St. Athanasius the Apostolic, from his 39th festal letter written 367 AD.

 

[fnr]

Thanks for your lengthy answer but that doesn’t answer my question. I’m asking in relation to heresies such as Arianism, Nestorianism etc…

How come most of the great heresies (like the ones a named above) came from the east? Is just mere coincidence or was there something about eastern philosophy and theology that allowed for such ideas?

Actually, my answer is directly relevant to the question of where Arianism, Nestorianism, and many other “isms” came from. These churches and their theology, including the history in which they arose, are directly related to the mischaracterization of Christian beliefs by almost every Muslim in the world today. For more on that, see my post on how the Quran and Hadith describe the beliefs of early Christians.

Miaphysitism (once called monophysitism) is theology of some of the non-Chalcedonian churches that still exist today. For example, the Coptic Orthodox Church is miaphysite in its confession, though dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church has indicated that the christological differences are not as widely separated as once believed.

Nestorianism is similar to the theology of the Church of the East, also known as the Nestorian Church.

If you want to understand these heresies, you can actually go to the web sites of these churches today! Here are some examples:
assyrianchurch.org.au/about-us/history
churchoftheeastindia.org/index.php
copticchurch.net/

In other words, these aren’t just historical footnotes, they’re real, present, and ongoing. And they’re not like Protestants, who diverged from Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox beliefs after having been part of the western Catholic church for hundreds of years. These are Christians who never agreed with some of the earliest ecumenical councils held by the Church, which for the most part, Protestants agree with wholly.

These groups are as ancient as our Church, and they are part of the “one body” which we profess as Catholics. The christological differences between us and them are really quite abstract, and don’t merit us (or them) keeping them at arm’s length.

 

[Ion]

This is the thing that I can’t get it: in both othodox and catolic churches, there are the monks who prove total dedication to Christ (protestants do not have monks so they can’t prove 100% dedication to Christ). How can they be heretics? How can they have different opinions?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is the thing that I can’t get it: in both othodox and catolic churches, there are the monks who prove total dedication to Christ (protestants do not have monks so they can’t prove 100% dedication to Christ). How can they be heretics? How can they have different opinions?

Some heresies actually come from people trying to defend the Church from some other heresy.

Also, monks are people too. There were many issues that resulted in heresies. Translation problems, lack of a Biblical canon where the Scriptures in possession by one Church may not clearly show the complete teaching. Also issues that were not discussed fully before and then people just decided to elaborate on it, so there was no clear answer at that time.

 

[Wandile]

This is the thing that I can’t get it: in both othodox and catolic churches, there are the monks who prove total dedication to Christ (protestants do not have monks so they can’t prove 100% dedication to Christ). How can they be heretics? How can they have different opinions?

Please clarify your question? I’m kinda confused with what you’re trying to ask.

I apologise for the inconvenience

 

[Wandile]

Some heresies actually come from people trying to defend the Church from some other heresy.

True, very true. First that comes to mind is Monophysitism , which for those who don’t know, was a response to the heresy of Nestorianism

 

[dzheremi]

Miaphysitism (once called monophysitism) is theology of some of the non-Chalcedonian churches that still exist today.

No. Miaphysitism is the Christology of all of the non-Chalcedonian churches, not just some of them. And it was never called monophysitism. Monophysitism is a separate belief, which has never been the position of the non-Chalcedonians. The non-Chalcedonians, like the Chalcedonians, condemn the heretic Eutyches who put forth this idea. The reason why the non-Chalcedonians have been classed as Eutychians is because many Chalcedonians confuse the two ideas, as you’ve done here. Even in the Coptic Encyclopedia (with articles contributed by non-Coptic scholars), in its entry on Eutyches, which ends by saying that the Eutychian position is equally unacceptable to the Copts as it is to the Byzantines and the Latins, it still calls the Copts “monophysites” (how it could do that in the context of explaining that they do not agree with Eutyches, I don’t know), so deeply engrained is this wrong idea. Please stop spreading wrong ideas in an attempt to educate people.

If you want to understand these heresies, you can actually go to the web sites of these churches today! Here are some examples:
assyrianchurch.org.au/about-us/history
churchoftheeastindia.org/index.php
copticchurch.net/

Do not class the non-Chalcedonians together with the Nestorians, please. That is very, very offensive and absolutely contrary to our historical and current position. Our father St. Cyril was, after all, the chief opponent of Nestorius, and we do most certainly keep his opposition to this heresy alive (talks between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church were stopped by the former after the Coptic synod rejected an agreed Christological statement drafted in talks that took place in the Monastery of St. Bishoy, Wadi Natrun, in January of 1995; since then there have been no further attempts at reconciliation). And, after all, the Nestorians openly confess that they agree with Nestorius’ heresy, so there is really no comparison between the two groups.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Note that many of the early heresies revolved around one basic doctrine of the Christian Faith which has been taught from the beginning, that Jesus is God the Word, the Son of God, who became flesh and dwelt among us, and is also the Son of Man. Son of God and Son of Man means he is fully God and fully man. But the elaboration on that is unclear. So one of the earliest heresies, Gnosticism, says that Jesus is eternal and God, but his humanity is but a manifestation. So it denies him as being fully man. Arius then made an opposite comment, that Jesus was created, and then elevated to a God. So he was fully man, but because he was only created and then elevated to being God, he was not fully God as he is not eternal. Then there comes the issues of how many persons, how many natures, how many wills, all just extensions of one doctrine of the Incarnation.

So the questions about monks getting these things wrong, it wasn’t elaborated enough what fully God and fully man meant. So every aspect of divinity and humanity was later on examined and questioned. But the answer always goes back to the doctrine on the Incarnation and that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

 

[Nine_Two]

Amazing how more knowledge actually leads to less truth. The East focused on just surviving when the West flourised in the 15th century and onwards. The Turks, Communism, the focus of the East shifted. It was a reversal of roles.

As the old saying goes, idle hands are the devil’s plaything. When people aren’t struggling they tend to over analyze things.

 

[Ion]

Please clarify your question? I’m kinda confused with what you’re trying to ask.

I apologise for the inconvenience

Ex: like catholics think coptics are in heresy but also coptic thinks that catholics are in heresy.
Both churches have monasteries and monks which prove 100%dedication to Christ. In fact is the same with all orthodox and catholic churches. You can say that is because of politics or so but the monks really believe it, one way or another.

 

[choliks]

Ex: like catholics think coptics are in heresy but also coptic thinks that catholics are in heresy.
Both churches have monasteries and monks which prove 100%dedication to Christ. In fact is the same with all orthodox and catholic churches. You can say that is because of politics or so but the monks really believe it, one way or another.

We all know that 100% dedication to Christ doesn’t mean we’ll always get it right. Fallen. Human. Nature.

 

[choliks]

We all know that 100% dedication to Christ doesn’t mean we’ll always get it right. Fallen. Human. Nature.

Oh… only one human being got it all right… the Theotokos, the Mother of God.