Heresies

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasEugene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ThomasEugene

Guest
What are the examples of heresies that exist today?

Please help us in our research work on “Heresies” and we want to research on “modern heresies.”

Thank you very much and God bless!🙂

Thomas Eugene
 
Some of the ancient heresies, such as Nestorianism and Arianism are still around today and can be found in some form among the JW and the Mormon Churches. Also forms of Gnosticism can be found in certain sects.

God bless
 
All the ancient heresies are still around, they just have new names and lingo.

I suppose the newest heresy could be called Marism, which is where some Catholics believe apparitons of Mary will give them details of - even announce the date of - the end of the world.
 
ThomasEugene said:
What are the examples of heresies that exist today?

Please help us in our research work on “Heresies” and we want to research on “modern heresies.”

Thank you very much and God bless!🙂

Thomas Eugene
Click to expand...
Islam and Secularism.
 
All the heresies get defeated, then go out and dress themselves in different clothing and come right back. Why? Because the author of the heresies (Satan) has never left. He has tried to destroy the Catholic Church for 2000 years, and continues to do so.

I think one of the most common heresies of our day is Pelagianism. Pelagianism received its name from Pelagius and designates a heresy of the fifth century, which denied Original Sin as well as Christian grace. We see it when we here people say stupid stuff like, “I’m spiritual, but I’m not religious. I don’t need a church to find God. I pray in my own way, at home.” We go to heaven by doing God’s will, not our will. We NEED God’s grace, and the biggest font of God’s grace is His Church, the Catholic Church. And, we need to obey the Commandments. We can’t go around making up our own Commandments like many people do today. Especially with regard to the 6th and 9th Commandments. “I am living with my boyfriend/girlfriend but I don’t think it’s wrong because we’re in love. We don’t think we need to get married.” How many times have we heard that sort of garbage? Too many!
 
Ron Conte,

I would like to post a response to the website you gave regarding the “heresy of Magesteriunism” which was given me by someone I asked to review it, since your points seemed confusing to me (mixing correct and incorrect things). Here are the four points he made:

(1) A number of legitimate points are made on this page; for example, that not all the truths of the Faith have been fully enunciated in specific magisterial documents. Many issues are not spelled out magisterially until a controversy arises and there is a need to clarify something. Also, of course, many statements are made by popes and bishops which are not Magisterial, and are not to be taken as official clarifications of the deposit of Faith

(2) Still, the page confuses as many issues about the Magisterium as it clarifies. I do not find the attempt to clarify the nature and role of the Magisterium successful. The different sections seem to be “loaded” in such a way that the potential “loopholes” in an improper view of the Magisterium are stressed without giving a truly adequate account of what a proper understanding of the Magisterium entails. In consequence, many criticisms of over-reliance on the Magisterium do not really refer to an over-reliance on the Magisterium, but a false understanding of what the Magisterium is. Understood properly, the Magisterium of the Church is both completely reliable and fairly easily identifiable, and in this context, no appeal to Scripture, Tradition, the sensus fidelium, personal insight, the writings of the saints, etc. can be used to overrule or modify the Magisterium. This seems to me to be insufficiently clear

(3) While some Catholics MAY perhaps have too much of a tendency to confine their understanding of the Faith to what they can quote from Magisterial documents, I have never met any. If we take the sum total of potential errors in defining and interpreting the Magisterium and call these potential errors, for convenience, “the heresy of Magisteriumism”, then I do not think that this is a heresy which anyone has ever held.

(4) Finally, heresies are not merely errors (or groups of errors) concerning the Faith. Most of us make such errors, in large or small ways, at one time or another in our lives. A formal heresy is something that is judged and identified by the Magisterium of the Church. The idea that “Magisteriumism” actually constitutes an identifiable heresy, rather than simply being a name some author uses as a heading to discuss certain potential theological errors that well-meaning people could possibly fall into, is ludicrous.
 
Is “Protestantism” considered heretical? Would that fall under modernism?
 
Scoobyshme said:
Ron Conte, I would like to post a response to the website you gave regarding the “heresy of Magesteriunism”
Click to expand...
using the numbered points above:
  1. I agree
  2. “Understood properly, the Magisterium of the Church is both completely reliable and fairly easily identifiable, and in this context, no appeal to Scripture, Tradition, the sensus fidelium, personal insight, the writings of the saints, etc. can be used to overrule or modify the Magisterium.”
Not true. It is often unclear what the teaching of the Magisterium is on particular points, or whether a particular teaching is infallible or non-infallible. The Magisterium teaches infallible and non-infallibly; the non-infallible teachings are reliable, but still subject to a limited possibility of error. There are occasions when the faithful by recourse to Tradition and Scripture and past magisterial teachings can dissent faithfully from a particular point taught non-infallibly by the Magisterium.

For example, Cardinal Avery Dulles, writing as a private theologian, disagreed with Pope John Paul II statement in Veritatis Splendor that slavery is intrinsically evil [First Things, Oct. 2005]. He based his disagreement on Tradition and Scripture and past magisterial documents. As for the proper understanding of what the Magisterium is, this is covered in other articles, here: catholicplanet.com/TSM/index.htm
  1. But I know of several specific examples of persons who believe this Magisterium-only idea to a severe degree. So I know it to be held by some persons.
  2. A mere over-reliance or over-emphasis on the Magisterium would not be heresy. Mere theological errors, or even relatively minor theological errors would not be heresy. Magisterium is a heresy for the same reason that Sola Scriptura is heresy, it attempts to represent the Faith as if it were based, NOT on Tradition and Scripture and Magisterium, but on only one of these, to the substantial detriment of the other two.
It is not true that heresies are only those ideas judged and condemned by the Magisterium. All the early Church Fathers spoke out strongly against the heresies of their day, without any magisterial decision in advance. In the history of the Church, the faithful Saints, Blesseds, clergy, and religious have often spoken out against heresies before the Magisterium gave a judgment and decision. In the early Church, there were very few magisterial decisions and documents. And yet the faithful could still recognize and reject the many heresies that rose up in the early years, by comparing these novel ideas with Tradition and Scripture.

I think that the person who gave you these comments has a tendency to over-emphasize, and misunderstand the limits of, the Magisterium. But this tendency is not what I am calling magisteriumism.
 
Ron Conte,
Code: 
 Please read the post by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus from the Catholic Culture website regarding your viewpoint:

 [catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=331](http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=331)
 
ThomasEugene said:
What are the examples of heresies that exist today?

Please help us in our research work on “Heresies” and we want to research on “modern heresies.”

Thank you very much and God bless!🙂

Thomas Eugene
Click to expand...
Actually with all the other conversation, we should first look at what a heresy is.

Anyone who knows and professes the truth but publically supports intrinsic evils or publically goes against church teaching has committed heresy. In religion beliefs or views held by a member of a church that contradict its orthodoxy, or core doctrines. It is distinguished from apostasy, which is a complete abandonment of faith that makes the apostate a deserter, or former member. Heresy is also distinguished from schism, which is a splitting of or from the church brought about by disputes over hierarchy or discipline, rather than over matters of doctrine. The heretic considers himself or herself not only a church member but, in a doctrinal controversy, the true believer; indeed, some persons originally labeled heretical were rehabilitated after once abhorred views become accepted.

That makes defining modern heresies easy, professed catholics who support abortion, the death penalty, etc. Professed catholics who participate in the ordination of women. Professed catholics who publically support actions or beliefs that go against the teaching of Christ and the Church.
MarcoPolo said:
Is “Protestantism” considered heretical? Would that fall under modernism?
Click to expand...
Protestantism is not in and of itself a heresy. Protestants are simply separated brothers and sisters in Christ who has not been taught according to the Catholic teachings. A lot depends on how well they follow the teaching of their own faith. Not being Catholic doesn’t make you a heretic, it just means you haven’t yet found the fullness of Faith.
 
Puppy,
Code: 
  Please read what Catholic Answers says about heresies, including the heresy of Protestantism, at the following link:
catholic.com/library/great_heresies.asp

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

Among the heresies they ennumerate, is Protestantism:

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide (“by faith alone”— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church “against” the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The heresy of magisteriumism:
catholicplanet.com/RCC/magisteriumism-heresy.htm
Click to expand...
At first I thought you were joking so I checked the link and maybe it is joking :confused:

So I checked the CCC #95. It wasn’t joking.

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62
 
There are a number of false and inaccurate statements in some of the posts above about heresy.

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Heresy can be material or formal. Material heresy is present whenever a baptized Christian denies or obstinately doubts a truth of Divine Revelation which must be believed with the full assent of faith. The term material heresy does not consider the intention, knowledge, or culpability of the individual who holds the heresy; formal heresy is only committed knowingly and intentionally (and therefore culpably). Material heresy may be also formal heresy, or it may be mere material heresy, i.e. an objective sin without being an actual sin.

Notice that not any denial or refusal to believe constitutes heresy. It must be one of the truths that requires ‘divine and Catholic faith’, i.e. NOT a non-infallible teaching that requires only the submission of will and intellect. One can disagree with some points within the non-infallible teachings of the Church without even material heresy.

Protestantism is certainly material heresy. It is contrary to Canon Law above to say otherwise.

There is no requirement that one first be corrected before one is guilty of heresy. Material heresy occurs regardless of the intention of the individual. Formal heresy includes a knowing intention, so one cannot accidentally, or through ignorance, fall into formal heresy.

It is not correct to say that the truth being denied must have been solemnly defined. Many of the truths taught by the Church fall under the universal Magisterium (which teaches infallibly, but without a solemn definition). Also, any truths essential to the Catholic Faith, and taught by Tradition and Scripture, but not by the Magisterium, would still be among the truths which cannot be rejected without heresy. If not, then there would have been no heretics in the early Church, when the Magisterium had few teachings.

The Catholic Faith encourages the faithful to meditate on Scripture and to interpret the text themselves; it is false to claim that the ‘private interpretation’ of the Bible is condemned by the Church.

The Church has two types of authority, teaching and temporal. The teaching authority (Magisterium) can teach either infallibly (without error) or non-infallibly (limited possibility of error). The temporal authority is fallible. It is not correct to generally refer to the authority of the Church as infallible.
 
I guess I am just more willing to give someone a chance accept the truth once they have been given the truth and not stoop to the same level as the anti-catholic protestants such as Jack Chick, Bill Maher, Michael Hoffman, and Tim LaHaye and condemn someone before giving them a chance to accept teachings they are unfamiliar with and make them their own.

I have a question for everyone here, how many are willing or even know how to explain Catholic beliefs to non-Catholics and are able to say “I don’t know” and then know how to find ther answers? I don’t know of too many and, before we start condemning Protestants we had better know how to guide them to the truth and not chuck them out with the bath water. Don’t forget

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

These all apply to how we should treat others that may be ignorant of the truth. I would be more concerned with the “Professed Catholic” that know the truth but publically disregard it.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Why are you forcing your faith on that poor dog?🙂

Freedom and human rights for all the animals!!!😃
Click to expand...
Very cute!!! My puppy prefers to be Catholic. She likes to go to CCD and loves to visit the church and our pastor regularly.
 
ThomasEugene said:
What are the examples of heresies that exist today?

Please help us in our research work on “Heresies” and we want to research on “modern heresies.”

Thank you very much and God bless!🙂

Thomas Eugene
Click to expand...
Absolutely all kinds you can imagine! The most dangeous one is: everyone can have his own truth. All “truths” are equal. It means that truth doesn’t exist. This heresy has its roots, in my opinion, in Protestant free interpretation of the Scripture. That’s why there are thousands of Protestant denomiations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top