Early Heresies
Here is a list of heresies that I started putting together. It's interesting that some of these heresies still exist just under different forms of Ecclesial Christian communities and quasi-Christian sects.
Pelagianism:
It is the belief that original sin did not taint Human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.
Pantheism:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are synonymous, or that the Universe is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "all" and θεός (theos) meaning "belief that God is all". As such Pantheism promotes the idea that "God" is better understood as a way of relating reverentially to Nature and the Universe. Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the "sacredness" of Nature.
Arianism:
Not to be confused with "Aryanism" which formed the core of Nazi racial ideology. Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre, and then pronounced a heretic again after his death at the First Council of Constantinople of 381. The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians. The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.
Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological dogma, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches. "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).
Arius taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. He taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and therefore inferior to) God the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a "creature"; in the sense of "created being". Arius and his followers appealed to Bible verses such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is "greater than I", and to Proverbs 8:22 which states "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work" although this verse is now generally held to refer to some concept of "wisdom" rather than to the Son of God.
Donatist:
The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian Church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution under the Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305), a disagreement that had implications both for the Church's understanding of the Sacrament of Penance and of the other sacraments in general.
The rest of the Church was far more forgiving of these people than the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the persecution. During the persecution some Church leaders had gone so far as to turn Christians over to Roman authorities and had handed over religious texts to authorities to be publicly burned. These people were called traditors ("people who had handed over"). These traditors had returned to positions of authority under Constantine I, and the Donatists proclaimed that any sacraments celebrated by these priests and bishops were invalid.
The first question, therefore, was whether the Sacrament of Penance can effect a reconciliation whereby the apostate, or in some cases specifically the traditor, may be returned to full communion. The orthodox Catholic position was that the sacrament was for precisely such cases, though at the time the Church still followed the discipline of public penance.
The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments.
Montanism:
Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century, named after its founder Montanus. He claimed to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As they went, "the Three" as they were called, spoke in ecstatic visions and urged their followers to fast and pray, so that they might share these personal revelations. His preachings spread from his native Phrygia (where he proclaimed the village of Pepuza as the site of the New Jerusalem) across the contemporary Christian world, to Africa and Gaul. Prisca claimed that Christ had appeared to her in female form. When she was excommunicated, she exclaimed "I am driven away like the wolf from the sheep. I am no wolf: I am word and spirit and power."
Eusebius of Caesarea quotes Apolinarius of Hierapolis, who spoke of the deaths of Montanus and Maximilla: "But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to have died. For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas."
The beliefs of Montanism are presented by an Orthodox historian as follows:
The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in Orthodox Christianity at the time and since.
The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.
A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in Orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage, and even the dissolution of some marriages, in particular, their prophetesses abandoned their husbands.
Some of the Montanists were also "Quartodeciman" ("fourteeners"), preferring to celebrate Easter on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. Orthodox Christians held that Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)
Montanus provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, which orthodox Christianity forbids.
Their prophets dyed their hair, stained their eyelids, and were allowed to play with tables and dice and lend on usury.
Modalism, the teaching that God was not a Trinity but was a single God of three modes or manifestations, was a doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists.
Sabellianism, (also known as Modalism, Modalistic Monarchianism, or Modal Monarchism)
It is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or manifestations of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the third century.
God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa), (Latin persona)[1]. The question is: "is God's threeness a matter of our falsely seeing it to be so (Sabellianism/modalism), or a matter of God's own essence revealed as three-in-one (trinitarianism)?"
Gnosticism:
(Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that the cosmos was created by an imperfect god, the demiurge with some of the supreme God's pneuma; this being is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God, (as opposed to the Gospel according to the Hebrews) and is contrasted with a superior entity, referred to by several terms including Pleroma and Godhead. Depictions of the demiurge—the term originates with Plato's Timaeus—vary from being as an embodiment of evil, to being merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. Gnosticism was a dualistic religion, influenced by and influencing Hellenic philosophy, Judaism (see Notzrim), and Christianity; however, by contrast, later strands of the movement, such as the Valentinians, held a monistic world-view. This, along with the varying treatments of the demiurge, may be seen as indicative of the variety of positions held within the category.
Gnostics believe that salvation achieved through knowledge. They beleve that there is a hidden knowledge only given to a select few. Gnosticism pre-dates Christianity. They believe in two gods, a supreme god and a creator god. The supreme god is good and the creator god is bad because creation is bad.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
I am becoming a fan of George Weigel. The more I read the more I like this guy.
Papal Kudos for the Fourth Estate?
By George Weigel
Posted: Wednesday, July 14, 2010
THE CATHOLIC DIFFERENCE
Publication Date: July 7, 2010
That Pope Benedict XVI is Catholicism's most effective spokesman and navigator through the rocks and shoals of Scandal Time II was demonstrated yet again in May, during a flying papal press conference en route to Portugal. Discussing the enduring meaning of the "message of Fatima," the Pope said the following:
"As for the new things we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sin existing within the Church. This, too, is something we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without but arises from sin within the Church, and thus the Church has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice."
Beautiful, profound, unexceptionable: yet this lesson in theology and piety was interpreted by virtually the entire press corps as a papal blessing on the way Scandal Time II had been covered since March -- and an implicit criticism of those who had suggested that recent reporting and commentary on priestly sexual abuse and episcopal misgovernance had been, at times, shoddy and agenda-driven (the agenda being the disempowerment of both pope and Church). There is nothing in the Pope's actual words, however, that supports that little bit of auto-absolution by the brethren of the fourth estate.
Thus "...attacks on the pope and the Church come not only from without": what can that mean other than that there have, in fact, been attacks from the Church "from without"?
That "the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without but arises from sin within the Church" is certainly true (and has been said repeatedly by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI). But that doesn't mean that there are aren't persecutors "from without." Measured against the Evil One and the damage he can cause, those outsiders may be pretty small beer; but they're persecutors nonetheless.
The Pope was entirely right to remind everyone of what he called, in his Good Friday meditations in 2005, the "filth" in the Church: infidelity is the cause of Scandal Time II, as it was the cause of the Long Lent of 2002. Dealing with that infidelity, as the Holy Father continued, requires "conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues" [of faith, hope, and love]. Here are the essentials in the Church's response to evil, which "attacks from within and without."
These are ancient truths. Recognizing their contemporary salience does not, however, require us to stand mute on the occasions when the press manifestly gets it wrong. Charity does require us to acknowledge that, in most cases -- not all, but most -- getting-it-wrong is the result of ignorance rather than malice. Still, one significant difference between 2002 and 2010 has been that the malice of some newspapers and magazines has been clear to anyone with a critical eye.
That unhappy fact underscores the necessity of reforming the Holy See's communications operation, which has retreated from the advances made under John Paul II's longtime spokesman, the Spanish layman Joaquin Navarro-Valls. As John Paul and Navarro-Valls demonstrated, the pope-press spokesman relationship works well when the spokesman is well-established in the confidence and confidences of the pontiff, and has ready access to the man he's interpreting to the world. Building such a relationship with a spokesman may require a pope to alter his habitual patterns of work, but the effort seems worth it, judging by the results.
The ingrained media defensiveness of the Roman Curia must also change: the attitude, entrenched over centuries, that the best story is no story. No, the best story is a good story that presents facts accurately and does so in such a way that the essentials of the Church's evangelical message get communicated. That takes work, but again, the effort is worth it.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
http://www.eppc.org/scholars/view.abstract,recNo.1,scholarID.14,type.1/pub_list.asp
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Editorial Jihad
This is really getting old. I have long been tired of inaccurate and lazy reporting. How can the NY Times continuously get away with this? They never get it right.
Patrick Coffin with Catholic Answers makes a very good point when he says, "If I am a sports reporter for the NY Times, and I don't know anything about sports, I would get fired. How is it that "Religion reporters" who don't know anything about religion or even the Catholic Church, still have a job?"
It doesn't always help when you are on the outside looking in. You shouldn't knock down a fence if you do not know why it was put up in the first place.
Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict
By Philip F. Lawler
Philip F. Lawler is editor emeritus of CWR.
The New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)