Well, that settles it. I’m a heretic and anathema.

[trophy33]

Not acceptable, because that destroys the Incarnation.

Acceptable for me, not for some specific theological views or for some specific historical church.

 

[trophy33]

Started? Those terms were in common ecclesiastical use for the first 16 centuries or so within all Christian communions. The usage (as with everything) gets harder to track with the rise of Protestantism in the 16th century, but certainly the early Protestants had no qualms about using the terms. You probably have to go to the 18th century to find people shying away from them in the name of ecumenism.
And this may be a controversial take on an ecumenical forum, but I'd say there was and still is good reason to use those terms to convey the gravity of doctrinal error, and they were successful at doing so until the proliferation of Protestant denominations which has led to indifferentism among many people today. In communions where schism is still recognized for the grave sin that it is, terms like "anathema" and "heretic" do still carry that heavy weight they always have.

I said "if all started to do it". I know that for example the RCC has a long history of using it.

What any church calls anathema or heretical is spiritually irrelevant. What is relevant is if its true in God's eyes. It might carry "a heavy weight" in specific environments, like in medieval times, for the risk of imprisonment, death and other similar discrimination and persecution. But thats a different topic. Good for us, such times are gone, at least in the democratic countries.

 

[Adam56]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

 

[The Liturgist]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Only a bishop can actually personally declare someone anathema in the Orthodox Church, by the way. However certain anathemas were made between the Catholics, Protestants Orthodox and Assyrians that for quite some time, everyone was a member of a church being anathematized by another church, and unfortunately despite the progress towards ecumenical reconciliation, some of these anathemas remain.

However since what you profess does not represent, in my view, a different Gospel, there is no way the Orthodox would anathematize you, unless you decided to develop some radical new heresy and actively promote it in, say, Greece or Romania. But even then I don’t think you would get personally anathematized, because this happens extremely rarely and mainly to bishops who profess heresies and cause schisms.

Now there are Old Calendarists and traditionalist Catholics who regard me as anathema due to my ecumenism, which they regard as a heresy, so you and I can be anathematized together by small isolated denominations which do not matter. Also there are a few fundamentalist Protestants and other newer denominations which believe salvation is exclusive to them. So welcome to the club I suppose?

There are a few anathemas I support, however. Specifically, against those Canadian churches which are promoting Euthanasia and performing doctor-assisted suicide in the nave of their churches. Also I am extremely opposed to homosexual marriage and abortion and other capitulations to the corruptions of modern society. Such beliefs are actually immoral and are scripturally indefensible, unlike your beliefs, which are, as I said in my prior post, fully orthodox in an ecumenical context.

 

[The Liturgist]

Acceptable for me, not for some specific theological views or for some specific historical church.

Not some specific historical church, but all historical churches. The formula that the incarnation is a union of the humanity and deity in the person of Jesus Christ, predates the Ecumenical Councils, is central to the Gospel, was upheld by all Church Fathers, and all historic churches affirm this union is without change, confusion, division or separation.

Note I am not denying your Christianity, or your piety, or your intelligence, or your salvation, I am merely seeking to make you aware of a contradiction in your belief system between two different aspects of beliefs you have expressed and also of that statement with that of the early church.

Please forgive me if my reply came across as hostile, by the way; I am having difficulty typing and this is causing me to have to use a brevity which I realized made it look like I was potentially, to use an American phrase, “chewing you out”, when this was not the intent.

 

[trophy33]

I am merely seeking to make you aware of a contradiction in your belief system between two different aspects of beliefs you have expressed and also of that statement with that of the early church.

What contradiction in my belief system do you have in mind?

If properly defined that Mary is mother only of his flesh, then the title is acceptable for me. However, I would not use it anyway, because its ambiguous, needs explanation, is unbiblical and focuses on Mary instead of on Christ.

 

[Hammster]

In my view that leaves you comfortably within ecumenical creedal and conciliar orthodoxy, since the first one is the main issue of the Council of Ephesus, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, (John 1:1) is the Theotokos, by whom the Word became flesh, who is the human mother who gave birth to the only begotten Son and Word of God, who is with God and is God, and it was through this incarnation including a natural birth that Jesus Christ became fully human and fully God without, and this is the crucial anti-Nestorian, anti-Eutychian tritheist aspect, change, confusion, separation, or division.

That the Blessed Virgin Mary is a perpetual virgin was believed by John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer, among others, but this is frankly not as big of an issue, particularly since the Oriental Orthodox, while believing this doctrine, did not participate in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

The Dormition or Assumption is an ancient belief of the Early Church which the Roman Catholic Church only formally made dogma in the 1950s under Pope Pius XII, but which the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have always believed, and there are compelling reasons to believe it, but it is not recorded in Scripture.

The belief in her Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Orthodox because our soteriology allows her to not have personally sinned while still being born under ordinary conditions, and that was only declared dogma by the Roman Catholics in the 19th century.

So in conclusion, I regard you as ecumenically orthodox. I should like to persuade you of the Dormition and the perpetual Virginity, but insofar as you accept the status of St. Mary as being the human mother of God in the person of the Son, the Theotokos, to use the language of the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus, this agrees with the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, Cranmer and all the reformers and all orthodox church Fathers.

But you aren’t Roman Catholic. You haven’t called me a heretic.

 

[The Liturgist]

But you aren’t Roman Catholic. You haven’t called me a heretic.

Indeed, I have expressly defended you from the allegation of heresy.

Since the basis for the allegation was partially the early church councils which were predominantly an Orthodox affair with only slight participation from the Roman church, until Chalcedon anyway, if a Roman Catholic can accuse you, a non Catholic, of heresy, I, as an Orthodox, can defend you from that allegation.

Also I felt inclined to celebrate your rejection of Nestorianism! When people reject Nestorianism according to their own reasoning it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, like eating chateaubriand with baked alaska for desert.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's not as if ALL of Christian Belief and Truth can just be "deduced" out by way of a constant dialectic among Christians, in whatever post-Apostolic council.

Personally, I think some Christian doctrines are best to be allowed to reside in the mystery of the reflection they have in the epistemic glass by which we peer into to see them. No human being really has the final word on topics that reflect varying degrees of historical obscurity for everyone alive today.

And the upshot? The upshot is that someone like Dr. Taylor Marshall needs to stop blowing his own horn so hard.

I’m not sure I agree with your premises but I do agree with the conclusion via other premises.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What percentage do I need to get before I’m no longer anathema?

I am not an anathema specialist to know your standing with that. As to being a heretic, which involves the obstinate teaching of things contrary to the faith, less is better and zero is best. But if you don’t obstinately teach it you aren’t even a heretic.

Couldn’t tell you. But I reject what in the OP.

Well, let me know when you figure it out. Holding to the creeds is a thing almost on par with holding to the Scriptures. One should not deviate lightly from either.

 

[Hammster]

I am not an anathema specialist to know your standing with that. As to being a heretic, which involves the obstinate teaching of things contrary to the faith, less is better and zero is best. But if you don’t obstinately teach it you aren’t even a heretic.

Well, let me know when you figure it out. Holding to the creeds is a thing almost on par with holding to the Scriptures. One should not deviate lightly from either.

I deviate with one point at least. So am I anathema? Is the guy in the OP correct?

 

[AlexB23]

Not in good standing. From Munificentissimus Deus:

"45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

There's probably an anathema in Trent about the Immaculate Conception too, but you get the idea.

Ooh, so that means anyone who is unsure about the 4 Marian dogmas is not in complete standing? I do believe in the immaculate conception, but I am still so new to the Catholic faith.

 

[AlexB23]

@Hammster , I will plug this into the AI that is run privately on my laptop, which is hooked up to a bunch of Christian documents, including Catholic documents. It might provide a better explanation on the 4 Marian dogmas compared to a young 24-year-old Catholic guy who has not even read through the Catechism yet. If you are okay with an AI, but take the answer with a grain of salt.

My prompt will be this:
Explain the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic church, and use supporting evidence such as Bible verses and/or Catholic tradition. Is denying any one of the four Marian dogmas grounds for heresy or anathema?

 

[zippy2006]

I deviate with one point at least. So am I anathema? Is the guy in the OP correct?

Can. 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"

(It is curious that the Vatican website incorrectly capitalizes 'Catholic' (link))

Marshall by nature ignores the thorny problem of Christian pluralism. For example, very few Catholic theologians in their right mind would call an Orthodox a heretic if they reject the Catholic dogmas or the Catholic interpretation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. It would be exceedingly strange to say that the non-Catholic rejection of a Catholic dogma constitutes heresy. Marshall's premise is that popes like Pius XII sought to bind Protestants to Catholic dogma, and this is an exceedingly weak premise. It's a knot of yarn that no one dares to try to unravel, and Marshall is averting his eyes from the complexities. Wiser individuals do not avert their eyes from the complexities while simultaneously "sticking their foot in it."

(Edit: unless Marshall's post was directed to Catholics and not to non-Catholics)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m not sure I agree with your premises but I do agree with the conclusion via other premises.

That's fine, Chevy. You don't have to agree. And even if you don't, the few axioms I have in my own faith don't infer by any necessity that I have to apply the label of heretic or apostate to you if you continue to disagree, unless of course you wake up one day with a burr under your saddle and decide to repudiate your faith in the Trinity.

.... somehow, though, I get the strange notion that that won't be happening.

I'm glad you can at least agree with my conclusion, even if through premises other than my own.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not in good standing. From Munificentissimus Deus:

"45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

There's probably an anathema in Trent about the Immaculate Conception too, but you get the idea.

The key term in there is 'willful denial', which also implies deliberation and indeed investigation. Your run of the mill Protestant who only knows what some pastor taught them is not a willful denier. But if someone really studied it and then denies it I might agree with Pius XII. I think those are uncommon people.

 

[AlexB23]

This is what the AI had to say, @Hammster . It failed on one of the dogmas (the 4th one), as Mary is not a co-redeemer. It is okay not to follow all the dogmas, as it is not grounds for heresy according to the AI.

 

[KevinT]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

I let this roll off my back like water off a duck.

What interests me the most about these kind of posts is WHY people believe these things? These councils that he quotes were convened at a time when they didn't have flushing toilets and they thought that the universe was made of concentric spheres. What leads one to think that they had a better corner on truth that we can arrive at with our own God-given reason?

KT

EDIT: I have read many of the other posts now. Many seem to be from a Catholic faith. As a Protestant, I think differently than those with Catholic background. I don't mean to be disrespectful to those with different upbringing.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Instead of being bummed out maybe you could see if you have any wiggle room on any of these teachings of the faith and could get to the point of not being a heretic any more. For example, the first one. Any wiggle room in your position on that where you would be able to stop considering yourself a heretic?

Sorry that Taylor Marshall rubs you wrong. He alternates between being over the top and being right on. Recently he was over the top in considering that pope Francis wasn't actually the pope. He may have settled down about that by now. I donno. He is not an irenic guy. But you do know where you stand. And where he does.

Wiggle room on point number 1: Mary physically bore a son, and His name was Jesus. But God the Son did not come into being through Mary. He existed forever before He created everything. You don't have to ba a Catholic to understand this.

 

[AlexB23]

Finally, the machine's response is fixed.