S
steve_b
Guest
You said
much/most protestants beliefs are not heretical.
That’s not true.
They’re wrong about
- the Church
- authority
- sacraments
- salvation
- and many of their interpretations of scripture
- Status
much/most protestants beliefs are not heretical.
That’s not true.
They’re wrong about
A
adf417
Guest
I also said “only the few we differ on”. I think your list constitutes “few”. There are many protestant beliefs that are orthodox, right?
Peace!!!
S
steve_b
Guest
I would ask by the time we removeI also said “only the few we differ on”. I think your list constitutes “few”. There are many protestant beliefs that are orthodox, right?
Peace!!!
- the Church
- authority
- sacraments
- salvation
- and many of their interpretations of scripture
- Mary
- communion of saints
- etc
My quesrtion is, how can they say they “love Jesus” or “believe in Jesus” and reject all the above?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Guys, you need to consider the distinction between material heresy and formal heresy.
A
adf417
Guest
Agreed!
I think many don’t realise there are two.
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi DW,
**“….the Greek term ‘hairesis’, which gave rise to our term ‘heresy’, has strong associations with ‘choosing’ or ‘choice.’ To choose is to express our freedom, to assert our capacity to create and control our worlds.” ** Alister McGrath, “Heresy, A History of Defending of the Truth”, pg. 7
“……now we are confronted with a plethora of religions, philosophies, and paradigms. There is no single, fundamental, controlling metranarrative. We are free to choose, to pick and mix – which for [sociologist Peter] Berger, is the essence of heresy.
It seems that by this definition, the Catholic Faith, which has existed from Pentecost, cannot be heresy because it was a faith that was expected to be believed. Only those belief systems which opposed it could be deemed to be heretical. Those who chose to oppose the Catholic Faith were committing heresy. History informs us that there has never been a shortage of these people.
[McGrath continues on, again, from the Protestant perspective]: **We are not required to accept the prepackaged worldview but are able to create on that resonates with our own perception of how things ought to be. ** Heresy is about being master of our own universe, choosing the way things are – or at least the way we would like them to be.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 8
So – heresy involves a choice, including the choice to have things ‘the way we would like them to be.’ Given that there is such a plethora of competing versions of Christianity today, the number of choices is now literally uncountable. This is not what the Reformers had in mind, but given the role of that they established of the ‘Right’ of the individual to ‘chose’, heresy was inevitable. So was doctrinal uncertainty, and in fact, so was the reduced importance of doctrine.
According to McGrath, ‘we are not required to accept a prepackaged worldview’. We are not required to believe in the manner of our forefathers. Obviously, this is not a Catholic point of view.
McGrath goes on to state:
“So what is heresy? Heresy is best seen as a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilizing, or even destroying the core of Christian faith. Both this process of destabilization and the identification of its threat may be spread out over an extended period of time. As way of making sense of one aspect of the Christian faith, such as the identity of Jesus of Nazareth – an aspect that may initially be welcomed and find general acceptance – may later have to be discontinued on account of the potential damage it is subsequently realized to be capable of causing.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 12
I don’ think that there is any doubt that heresy subverts and destroys the core of Christian faith. The bigger question here though is how we can actually identify that which is heresy and that which is orthodox. This is especially difficult because history shows us that the people of history that we ALL recognize today as heretics, virtually always claimed that their beliefs were the ones that were ‘orthodox’.
In regards to heresy: noted Anglican Theologian Alister McGrath wrote an amazing book about heresy, which is especially interesting because it is written from a Protestant perspective. It begins by establishing an actual definition for the word ‘heresy’ and explaining its basic nature.
**“….the Greek term ‘hairesis’, which gave rise to our term ‘heresy’, has strong associations with ‘choosing’ or ‘choice.’ To choose is to express our freedom, to assert our capacity to create and control our worlds.” ** Alister McGrath, “Heresy, A History of Defending of the Truth”, pg. 7
“……now we are confronted with a plethora of religions, philosophies, and paradigms. There is no single, fundamental, controlling metranarrative. We are free to choose, to pick and mix – which for [sociologist Peter] Berger, is the essence of heresy.
Code:
‘In the matter of religion, as indeed in other areas of human life and thought, this means that **the modern individual is faced not just with the opportunity but the necessity to make choices as to his beliefs. **This fact constitutes the heretical imperative in the contemporary situation. **Thus heresy, once the occupation of marginal and eccentric types, has become universalized.” **Peter L. Berger, ‘The Heretical Imperative’, pg. 30-1[McGrath continues on, again, from the Protestant perspective]: **We are not required to accept the prepackaged worldview but are able to create on that resonates with our own perception of how things ought to be. ** Heresy is about being master of our own universe, choosing the way things are – or at least the way we would like them to be.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 8
So – heresy involves a choice, including the choice to have things ‘the way we would like them to be.’ Given that there is such a plethora of competing versions of Christianity today, the number of choices is now literally uncountable. This is not what the Reformers had in mind, but given the role of that they established of the ‘Right’ of the individual to ‘chose’, heresy was inevitable. So was doctrinal uncertainty, and in fact, so was the reduced importance of doctrine.
According to McGrath, ‘we are not required to accept a prepackaged worldview’. We are not required to believe in the manner of our forefathers. Obviously, this is not a Catholic point of view.
McGrath goes on to state:
“So what is heresy? Heresy is best seen as a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilizing, or even destroying the core of Christian faith. Both this process of destabilization and the identification of its threat may be spread out over an extended period of time. As way of making sense of one aspect of the Christian faith, such as the identity of Jesus of Nazareth – an aspect that may initially be welcomed and find general acceptance – may later have to be discontinued on account of the potential damage it is subsequently realized to be capable of causing.” McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 12
I don’ think that there is any doubt that heresy subverts and destroys the core of Christian faith. The bigger question here though is how we can actually identify that which is heresy and that which is orthodox. This is especially difficult because history shows us that the people of history that we ALL recognize today as heretics, virtually always claimed that their beliefs were the ones that were ‘orthodox’.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Topper: Great post as always! I understand what you are saying. However, only a Catholic person who renounces his belief in what the catholic Church teaches is a heretic. all others who are not or never were Catholic’s are not in anyway a heretic but that does not mean that one does not promote heresy by what they proclaim as a belief different from what is believed religion wise. In a broad sense one could very well be a heretic and promote heresy in whatever religious beliefs they claim to be true that is far different from what a particular religion teaches that one belongs to. Protestants have only a part of the truth but not the fullness of the truth that the CC teaches. most of what they believe is based in large part on interpretations, rather than on a particular heresy.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Truthfully, I often see Protestants like sheep without a shepherd because of Sola Scriptura they are constantly having to reinvent the theological wheel and figure it all out for themselves (even individually!).
Most have no clue about Christian history which means they have little or no reference to the early church fathers who could help them see the scriptures the way the apostles actually did.
Mostly they will look at you funny when you mention Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch or the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes. If they ever read what Justin Martyr wrote about the Catholic Mass in his time (see What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like? ) they’d quickly see that their oft asserted statement that they are like the early Christians is really wishful thinking.
Anyway, it seems to me that the real problem for Protestantism is its first and fundamental error: Sola Scriptura.
Most have no clue about Christian history which means they have little or no reference to the early church fathers who could help them see the scriptures the way the apostles actually did.
Mostly they will look at you funny when you mention Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch or the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermes. If they ever read what Justin Martyr wrote about the Catholic Mass in his time (see What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like? ) they’d quickly see that their oft asserted statement that they are like the early Christians is really wishful thinking.
Anyway, it seems to me that the real problem for Protestantism is its first and fundamental error: Sola Scriptura.
Actually, Michael, I was thinking about the idea of Catholic lay-people arguing amongst themselves about whether or not protestants are heretics.We only point these things out because we love you Jon. After all…you’re one of my favorite n-Cs around here.
Still, if these errors are really errors and you agree then there’s something you can do about it, right?
Clearly, I do not consider myself a heretic, and usually, I don’t apply the term to others, though I think that some of our protestant siblings’ teachings are heterodox.
I also consider you, Michael, one of the better Catholic posters here, because you consistently use Catholic teaching to support your positions. Hence, you are one of my favorites here.
Jon
We should probably rename the thread “The Synod on JonNC”.
Perhaps I should go hide out at the Wartburg Castle. You are welcome to stick around Jon, even if you have no voting rights.
I plan on it, my friend.
Jon
C
Church_Militant
Guest
So that may help you out a bit there.
I often feel the same way and like you, hesitate to label someone else a heretic (or much else if it can be helped). It just seems pretty far above my pay grade, y’know?
I also consider you, Michael, one of the better Catholic posters here, because you consistently use Catholic teaching to support your positions. Hence, you are one of my favorites here.
Well thanks!I think the article that started this discussion is interesting in its stats which show the same need for good catchesis outside the Church as within it. Perhaps there is a greater need for exploration of what Christian doctrines really are and the apologetics of explaining and defending those things.
Realistically, how can anyone expect to properly evangelize for a faith that they themselves do not know and understand?
I think that you and I would probably agree that there is much more to the Gospel than just The Four Spiritual Laws and/or The Romans Road to Salvation and the errors that the article speaks about are really essentials of the Christian faith.
I mean…just today, the Gospel reading was Matthew 25:31-46 which is clearly an important aspect of salvation that certainly goes beyond the above mentioned “witnessing tools”.
Personally I like God’s Love for You and use it all the time.
Keeping you in my prayers Jon as I beg you to do for me.
S
steve_b
Guest
I didn’t make that specific distinction because the CCC IMV already made the distinction.
Allow me to explain
formal heretic**,** = the material error adds the informative element of “freely willed” and its obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet .
Material heretic = free choice is lacking and is merely objective, or material. However, the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonorable.
taken from Heresy
Therefore, “informative element”, and “freely willed” and / or “free choice” is what distinguishes the 2 types of heretic
Given that distinction, IMV what I posted as follows, doesn’t contradict that distinction.
[emphasis mine]
“obstinate” in that definition from the CCC, indicates to me, someone has been warned of their error multiple times already AND is resisting correction willingly…Agreed?
Just as Paul stated
Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
Therefore, someone might be a material heretic until they are informed of their error and then continues to willingly believe a lie. I say “might” because we can’t automatically presume ignorance or that it is innocent
T
Topper17
Guest
Hi Spina,
Thanks for your response.
**
“Heresy lies in the shadow lands of faith, a failed attempt at orthodoxy whose intentions are likely to have been honorable but whose outcomes were eventually discovered to be….corrosive.” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 13
McGrath makes a very important point here – that heresy is very rarely ‘on purpose’. History records 2000 years worth of people who THOUGHT that what they were doing was God’s Will. But in fact, they were not. Good intentions are important of course, but they are NOT ENOUGH.
“……any discussion of heresy must acknowledge the darker side of this discussion – the **enforcement of ideas by force, the suppression of liberty, and the violation of rights………**this brief account of the nature of heresy raises huge questions. Two obvious examples may be noted. **Who decides what is definitive and what is dangerous? And how are such decisions made?” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 13
It would seem that the question here should be able to help us to identify what is orthodox and what is heretical. Who decides and how? Specifically and exactly how? Not just the tired old generalities which have resulting in thousands of competing sects that ALL think that THEY are the ones who have it ‘right’. The Catholic Church actually has an answer to these questions. The answers offered by Protestantism are not exactly so clear cut, and I would suggest that those answers which APPEAR to be plausible do not survive the first round of follow-up questions all that well. When scrutinized, various appeals to this or that Confession only serve to reinforce the position of the Church.
At stake - Christian doctrine.
“Doctrine, then, preserves the central mysteries at the heart of the Christian faith and life.” McGrath, pg. 30
Doctrine is FAR less important to Protestantism in general than it was to the early Reformers.
“**A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it./B] Sometimes a doctrine that was once thought to defend a mystery actually turns out to subvert it. **A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in it’s unwillingness to accept that it has in fact failed.” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 31
So the question becomes how we see the Protestant Reformation in light of the above comments. It would be like a Scientist who begins an experiment. The experiment begins to fail and damage is being done to the lab and the people in the lab, but the chief Scientist cannot admit that he was wrong and simply carries on even though the results dictate that the experiment needs to be abandoned.
We know that many Protestants consider the beliefs of ‘those other’ Protestants to be ‘heterodox’, and also know that ‘those other’ Protestants return the ‘favor’. So – who decides which group of Protestant beliefs are heterodox and which are not? The very fact that Protestantism has no answer to this question should be enough to give them all pause. This one appeals to this Confession and that one appeals to this ‘rule’. But none of it works to insure doctrinal certainty.
Spina, when we look at the doctrinal divisiveness and confusion which defines Protestantism, how do we view McGrath’s comment about the ‘unwillingness to accept that it is in fact failed.’
God Bless You Spina, Topper**
Thanks for your response.
Of course the vast majority of Protestants of today do not ‘qualify’ for the term ‘heretic’. However, given the diversity of Christian belief today, obviously, there are a lot of people who have come to hold doctrines that are not true. On the other hand, ISTM that all Christians have a responsibility to seek out and follow the Truth, meaning God’s Absolute Truth. It is that ‘responsibility’ that requires that we consider the nature of heresy and how it might apply to Christianity today. Again, McGrath shows us the way:
**
“Heresy lies in the shadow lands of faith, a failed attempt at orthodoxy whose intentions are likely to have been honorable but whose outcomes were eventually discovered to be….corrosive.” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 13
McGrath makes a very important point here – that heresy is very rarely ‘on purpose’. History records 2000 years worth of people who THOUGHT that what they were doing was God’s Will. But in fact, they were not. Good intentions are important of course, but they are NOT ENOUGH.
“……any discussion of heresy must acknowledge the darker side of this discussion – the **enforcement of ideas by force, the suppression of liberty, and the violation of rights………**this brief account of the nature of heresy raises huge questions. Two obvious examples may be noted. **Who decides what is definitive and what is dangerous? And how are such decisions made?” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 13
It would seem that the question here should be able to help us to identify what is orthodox and what is heretical. Who decides and how? Specifically and exactly how? Not just the tired old generalities which have resulting in thousands of competing sects that ALL think that THEY are the ones who have it ‘right’. The Catholic Church actually has an answer to these questions. The answers offered by Protestantism are not exactly so clear cut, and I would suggest that those answers which APPEAR to be plausible do not survive the first round of follow-up questions all that well. When scrutinized, various appeals to this or that Confession only serve to reinforce the position of the Church.
At stake - Christian doctrine.
“Doctrine, then, preserves the central mysteries at the heart of the Christian faith and life.” McGrath, pg. 30
Doctrine is FAR less important to Protestantism in general than it was to the early Reformers.
“**A heresy is a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it./B] Sometimes a doctrine that was once thought to defend a mystery actually turns out to subvert it. **A heresy is a failed attempt at orthodoxy, whose fault lies not in its willingness to explore possibilities or press conceptual boundaries, but in it’s unwillingness to accept that it has in fact failed.” **McGrath, “Heresy”, pg. 31
So the question becomes how we see the Protestant Reformation in light of the above comments. It would be like a Scientist who begins an experiment. The experiment begins to fail and damage is being done to the lab and the people in the lab, but the chief Scientist cannot admit that he was wrong and simply carries on even though the results dictate that the experiment needs to be abandoned.
We know that many Protestants consider the beliefs of ‘those other’ Protestants to be ‘heterodox’, and also know that ‘those other’ Protestants return the ‘favor’. So – who decides which group of Protestant beliefs are heterodox and which are not? The very fact that Protestantism has no answer to this question should be enough to give them all pause. This one appeals to this Confession and that one appeals to this ‘rule’. But none of it works to insure doctrinal certainty.
Spina, when we look at the doctrinal divisiveness and confusion which defines Protestantism, how do we view McGrath’s comment about the ‘unwillingness to accept that it is in fact failed.’
God Bless You Spina, Topper**
- Status