"Old" Heresies

you are right, call a spade a spade

I certainly don't think so.

You are correct. I see nothing wrong with calling a heresy a heresy.

We are not relying on our own authority nor judgement. When we are reiterating what the Church has declared in the past as a heresy through the councils.

Peace

Never, be afraid to use the word "heresy" in reference to something that's well----an actual Heresy, examples of which could be: Gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Donatism, Protestantism, Jansenism, Mohemmadanism, Unitarianism, Socianism, Jehovah's Witnesses(quasi-Arian in nature), Mormon (pseudo-Christian Heathenism), etc. ------HOWEVER, please use TACT! Don't blatantly go around saying to your Protestant friends or rather Non-Catholic friends/family saying: Greetings Blasphemous Heretic/Schismatic/Heathen/Pagan/Infidel/Impious Unbeliever---Why, one might inquire? Although these could be apt definitions and are certainly applicable to those who refuse to assent to the Holy Catholic faith and thereby join her or remain within her, more loving admonitions should be used. Like "Separated Brethren" for Protestants for example. However, when need be and enlightening, if one inquires first tell them the reasons first why such and such belief (if it is heretical that is) is in error, then say "Because the church in her wisdom and truth rejects such and such error, it is declared heresy."

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

Is it inappropriate, in theological discussion, to refer to deviations in theologiocal thought as "heresy" when they have been established as such? Like, the Arian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, etc.

When I have theological discussions, I tend to think about things in a very detached manner. Like some things are, if you think about them in a logical philosophical and theological way, "fact". Ie, those would call themselves Christians, but believe that Christ is not divine, are Arians. They can argue about that designation all that they'd like, but the belief is Arian and has been Arian since the fourth century.

Is that wrong? Incorrect?

When I do that, am I guilty of theological error? Or is it considered "rude" to do that?

I'm just asking because I got reported for saying that those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity cannot properly be called Christian.

Did I break any rules? Or was my comment just politically incorrect?

Click to expand...

Well, some people take offence to the word when its applied to something they believe. Its all over the place though, even some of the ones that there condemned in the first few centuries. They seem to reappear from time to time. Ecumenism is important but I am unsure as to what extent. Still working that one out.


Peace.

In a discussion in GT once, instead of saying 'you're belief is heresy' an Orthodox debater merely defined a particular heresy quoting from a dictionary. I thought it was very appropriate because it was not accusatory but it did draw attention to the fact that the beliefs being outlined have always been rejected as heresy by the Church.

But then, it's useful to consider the fact that many people don't care what has been traditionally rejected by the Church because they think we have been suppressing true Christians throughout the ages. It may be appropriate, but not always very useful - especially if you're hoping the Spirit will use your words to teach the truth.

I agree with ASSISI.

Less offensive, so they are less defensive.

Of course it depends on the opponent...and their maturity level in debates.

Just post what the heresy was and ask if it is comparable.

WarriorAngel said:

Of course it depends on the opponent...and their maturity level in debates.

Click to expand...

Great point. It might be a nudge in the right direction that the other debater needs.

WarriorAngel said:

I agree with ASSISI.

Less offensive, so they are less defensive.

Of course it depends on the opponent...and their maturity level in debates.

Just post what the heresy was and ask if it is comparable.

Click to expand...

Yea thats a good tact, but be prepared to explain such things as:

Judaizing
Arianism
Macedonianism
Apollinarisism
Nestorianism
Monophysitism
Monothelism

and thats only some of it up to just the 7th century.

Peace.

Ravenonthecross said:

Never, be afraid to use the word "heresy" in reference to something that's well----an actual Heresy, examples of which could be: Gnosticism, Arianism, Sabellianism, Donatism, Protestantism, Jansenism, Mohemmadanism, Unitarianism, Socianism, Jehovah's Witnesses(quasi-Arian in nature), Mormon (pseudo-Christian Heathenism), etc. ------HOWEVER, please use TACT! Don't blatantly go around saying to your Protestant friends or rather Non-Catholic friends/family saying: Greetings Blasphemous Heretic/Schismatic/Heathen/Pagan/Infidel/Impious Unbeliever---Why, one might inquire? Although these could be apt definitions and are certainly applicable to those who refuse to assent to the Holy Catholic faith and thereby join her or remain within her, more loving admonitions should be used. Like "Separated Brethren" for Protestants for example. However, when need be and enlightening, if one inquires first tell them the reasons first why such and such belief (if it is heretical that is) is in error, then say "Because the church in her wisdom and truth rejects such and such error, it is declared heresy."

Click to expand...

LOL!

I definatley need to remember this for a guy at work that I call a Pagan all the time because he is an unbaptized baptis (as he calls himself). Of course it is two way and I am an idolator. LOL

Greetings Blasphemous Heretic/Schismatic/Heathen/Pagan/Infidel/Impious Unbeliever

Assisi said:

In a discussion in GT once, instead of saying 'you're belief is heresy' an Orthodox debater merely defined a particular heresy quoting from a dictionary. I thought it was very appropriate because it was not accusatory but it did draw attention to the fact that the beliefs being outlined have always been rejected as heresy by the Church.

But then, it's useful to consider the fact that many people don't care what has been traditionally rejected by the Church because they think we have been suppressing true Christians throughout the ages. It may be appropriate, but not always very useful - especially if you're hoping the Spirit will use your words to teach the truth.

Click to expand...

GT is like the romper room of this site and unless you are preaching everyone is right you will be reported by their secret snoop. GT is a JOKE.

LOL

Veritas_et_Puritas said:

Is it inappropriate, in theological discussion, to refer to deviations in theologiocal thought as "heresy" when they have been established as such? Like, the Arian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, etc.

When I have theological discussions, I tend to think about things in a very detached manner. Like some things are, if you think about them in a logical philosophical and theological way, "fact". Ie, those would call themselves Christians, but believe that Christ is not divine, are Arians. They can argue about that designation all that they'd like, but the belief is Arian and has been Arian since the fourth century.

Is that wrong? Incorrect?

When I do that, am I guilty of theological error? Or is it considered "rude" to do that?

I'm just asking because I got reported for saying that those who do not believe in the Holy Trinity cannot properly be called Christian.

Did I break any rules? Or was my comment just politically incorrect?

Click to expand...

Personally I find your approach to be fine.

Far better than mine...
Of course I was reported seven times in one day in the GT area.

Dear Veritas,

A heresy is just that. The question becomes problematic in two different ways.

1. When one is in discussion with Christians who do not accept the Nicene Creed. My own Church would hold that they are not Christians at all, but if one is in discussion with them in places where modern relativism is the custom, then offence is bound to be taken if one calls them heretics. Here one either does not enter such discussions - no one compels one to; or one exercises a courteousness one would expect in return.

2. When one's own Church's view of what others hold is inaccurate. For many centuries Catholics and Eastern Orthodox referred to my Church as 'monophysite', and in so doing, sadly, showed they knew nothing about our Christology. Now, most informed Catholics and EO's know better, even as we know better than to call them 'Nestorian'.

We have to remember that whilst there are a good many ancient heresies still alive and deceiving people, the various heresies were alas used in a polemical way in the past to brand those with whom our Church disagreed. So make sure of your ground - and their ground - before assuming heresy.

We have to accept that in the modern world relativism is the dominant faith; that does not mean we must accept it - just recognise that it is very easy to appear as though we are unthinking bigots - which we are not.

In peace,

Anglian

Rhamiel said:

you are right, call a spade a spade

Click to expand...

I agree, heresies are heresies and nothing else.

No, from a theoretical and historical standpoint it's not wrong to refer to things as what they are. That's why books are written about them, ect.

But when you're dealing with the internet, you're dealing with interaction with others. And realistically speaking here's one very common example of what the convo will look like:

Person 1: Mary wasn't the mother of God, God doesn't have a mother, to say so would mean that Mary existed before God and created him. Jesus was divine in nature and human in nature but Mary was only the mother of his humanity, not his divinity.

Person 2: That sounds a lot like the anicent Nestorian heresy, condemned permantely back in the third of fourth century.

Person 3: I'm reporting you for calling me a heretic!

Ravenonthecross said:

more loving admonitions should be used. Like "Separated Brethren" for Protestants for example.

Click to expand...

Just a gentle comment. Several times now, I have found that the term "Separated Brethern" that we think as "loving" is not thought so by those who often are on the receiving end of the term. Those using the term are "attacked" as being unloving.

Sometimes a person just can't please people, no matter how "tactful" he/she believes him/herself to be. It's at these times I really wonder if we can't simply "call a spade a spade", instead of "turning ourselves inside-out" trying to be PC to no avail. (If a belief has already been determined and is already known to be heresy, why can't we simply say so?) I mean, if we are so concerned with what is not the truth (because the truth might be received negectively) where does it end?

BTW this in no way is meant to be any kind of encouragement for saying "YOU are a heretic, schismatic, et. al." It's just saying that the belief has been deemed heresy or whathaveyou.

AMDG said:

Just a gentle comment. Several times now, I have found that the term "Separated Brethern" that we think as "loving" is not thought so by those who often are on the receiving end of the term. Those using the term are "attacked" as being unloving.

Sometimes a person just can't please people, no matter how "tactful" he/she believes him/herself to be. It's at these times I really wonder if we can't simply "call a spade a spade", instead of "turning ourselves inside-out" trying to be PC to no avail. (If a belief has already been determined and is already known to be heresy, why can't we simply say so?) I mean, if we are so concerned with what is not the truth (because the truth might be received negectively) where does it end?

BTW this in no way is meant to be any kind of encouragement for saying "YOU are a heretic, schismatic, et. al." It's just saying that the belief has been deemed heresy or whathaveyou.

Click to expand...

When you are dealing with someone that reads the history of Christianity and is aware of the councils and events that dealt with herecies then I think there is no problem with using the word herecy in regards to a belief.

BUT... you will always have someone reading your post that is completely ignorant to history and herecies and only has a perverted understanding of scripture who will be reading your post and they may not even be a part of the current discussion but simply passing through. It is these people that do the reporting most of the time in my experience. Or if you have somene that is participating in such a conversation it is wise to refrain from such language because they will be offended out of their own ignorance.

It is always easier to keep discussions like this is the area that is reserved for your belief, OBOB in this case.

"Greetings Blasphemous Heretic/Schismatic/Heathen/Pagan/Infidel/Impious Unbeliever"

You just need to add a helpful, "Circle all that apply" at the end. I mean, how could people be angry when you provide clear instructions?