Orthodoxy and heresy

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

How does one respond to the cynical accusation that what we consider orthodoxy is simply the view of the winning party? For example, in the case of Arianism, how can one deffend that the Arians were “lost” because they were wrong, not they were wrong because they lost? After all, both sides considered themselves “catholic”.

 

[mardukm]

To start the ball rolling D):

If it is a theist (generally) who argues that, then answer, “God’s Providence.”

If it’s a Muslim, then answer, “the argument can easily be applied to you.”

If it’s a modern Arian sympathizer, like the JW’s or the Mormons or INC, then answer, “If it was really the Truth, then it could not have died away. The fact that it did means it was not the Truth. In fact, Arianism had more in common with the pagan religions of the time and by all accounts should have become the dominant form of Christianity, since even the one who established Christianity, Emperor Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer. That orthodox Catholicism won out instead, and Arianism expunged from the annals of history, is a sure sign of Divine Providence.”

If it’s an athiest, then answer, “what business is it of yours?” OR “For 300 years, Christianity was not ‘the winner,’ yet she survived. For another 75 years or so, orthodox Catholic Christianity was not ‘winner’, yet she survived. Instead of being conquered by numerous military invaders, the Church instead converted even these war-like races. The survival of orthodox Catholicism defies all logic, but we are here nonetheless.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lancer]

The answer is really quite simple – two Scripture quotes:

Matthew 16: 13-20 (New International Version-UK)

Peter’s Confession of Christ

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say the Son of Man is? 14 They replied, Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
15 But what about you? he asked. Who do you say I am?
16 Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ

Luke 22: 31-32 (New International Version - UK)

31 Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.
32 But I have prayed for you, Simon,** that your faith may not fail.** And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

The Arians lost because “Peter” (whoever is the current Pope) said that they lost–meaning the case is closed on the truth of what is right and what is wrong in accordance with the orthodox Apostolic Teaching of the Church. The internal battle over the issue (Arian Hersey …Women’s Ordination, Contraception…etc.) may rage for years…centuries…that’s a Senior management issue…i.e., God will determine the when and how of ending the battle. We are called first and foremost to fidelity (to be faithful) to Our Lord Jesus Christ (just think about the premise of all of his miracles…"…your faith has saved you…your faith has healed you…".). What is the absolute first imperative response to our gift of faith (in Christ)?..it is quite clear…it is to be OBEDIENT (to Christ)…the Church is the Body of Christ …Christ himself is the Head, but his Vicar on Earth (Christ’s visible head on earth) is Peter (The Pope)…and his brother Bishops in communion with him and the Magisterium!

What is the correct way to describe The Church: the Catholic Church is…THE ONE Church…or…the Catholic Church is ONE. And…so what happens when there is a schism/heresy?..what is left?..two Churches or two divided parts of the one Church? If you pick either one of these…you are not a Catholic. The answer is ONE CHURCH WITH ONE SECT! The Catholic Church’s ONENESS means that she is always wholly unique and wholly unified! So there will never be two true Churches or two parts of the true Church. (paraphrasing from Msgr. Ronald Knox (+1957) The Church on Earth).

Pax Christi

 

[mchale]

How does one respond to the cynical accusation that what we consider orthodoxy is simply the view of the winning party? For example, in the case of Arianism, how can one deffend that the Arians were “lost” because they were wrong, not they were wrong because they lost? After all, both sides considered themselves “catholic”.

Well ultimately one can make the same charge about any conflict. After all, if the Germans had won WWII, would we know be talking about how good it was that the morally decadent, populist countries of the West were stopped?

My personal belief is this. The concept of Arianism as it is usually formulated (and is currently formulated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses produces a religion that is absolutely incompatible with our Judaic foundation (I know the Jews don’t see the Trinity as being compatible with their version of mono-theism either… but we will save that discussion for later). Arianism requires a secondary, created deity. If such a deity exists however, then the clearly, the religion can’t be monotheistic. If there is more than one God, it conflicts with what the Old Testament teaches about God.

In other words, if Arianism won, I suspect that over time, many other lesser deities might have been brought into the Religion. But in that case, how is it significantly different than the Paganism which it would have replaced.

–
Bill

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

Well ultimately one can make the same charge about any conflict. After all, if the Germans had won WWII, would we know be talking about how good it was that the morally decadent, populist countries of the West were stopped?

This is what I’m trying to get at. For example, if the revolutionaries lost the American Revolution, then today we’d be saying “Those blasted rebels/terrorists were trying to cause havoc. Thank God they lost.” In the secular world the approach is normally “Might makes Right” and “History is written by the victors”. People tend to extrapolate that mentality to the realm of religious discussions, namely heresies. That the Truth won because it was Truth only be understood through the lenses of faith?