I forgot the name of this heresy...

[Virgil the Roman]

Didn't you raise it???!!!

He is the original poster.

 

[Macarius]

Originally they applied to the sacraments, however a modern twist that I am beginning to see on this is the attitude "if you are not without sin you can not do x for the church." An example of this is "if you are not without sin, you are not worthy to paint icons on the walls of the church." Yes, I have heard that spoken publicly, and while I knew it was an ancient heresy I had forgotten which heresy it actually was.

Another modern iteration, at least to me, is the Catholic view of the sacrament of marriage as it pertains to divorce vs. anullment.

In the RCC view (and I recall reading this in the CCC but don't feel like looking it up), the couple being married are the officients of the sacrament (not the material of the sacrament, as they are in Orthodox theology). Donatism, in a sense, says that sins of the officient can invalidate the sacrament. Annulment, in the RCC sense, CAN be predicated on the idea that one or both members of the marriage were not fully invested in the sacrament.

In other words, a flaw (a sin) on the part of the officient is being used as cause to declare the sacrament as having "never happened" - as being invalid.

That sounds like donatism to me. I've posed this question a few times to different RCC thinkers I respect (and there are many I have a deep respect for) and haven't yet recieved an answer that satisfied me. I'm not posting it to pose an argument against the RCC (i.e. I don't pose this question to RCC christians as a polemic against them) - more just a theological question that I'm either misunderstanding or which presents a potentially serious flaw in the RCC's current sacramental theology.

To me, the easiest thing (and the thing most consistent with the theology of other sacraments) is to have the married couple be the material of the sacrament, and the priest be the officient. No flaw in the priest could invalidate a marriage sacrament.

That, or recognize that the sacrament worked (i.e. was valid) but that human sin sullied it the same way that our sins post-baptism can sully our baptism (requiring confession and such). In other words, recognize divorce

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Protoevangel]

What is the name of the heresy that said that a priest was only able to vailidly celebrate the eucharist if he was in a state of grace, ie. without sin on his soul?

I think the heresy you are looking for is Donatism.

.

.

.

.

.

.

J/K, I read the whole thread...

 

[Michael G]

Didn't you raise it???!!!

I mean the person who openly attacked me on Sunday asking me how I was worthy to paint icons for the church when I am the first among sinners, that person is clearly a Donatist.

 

[MKJ]

I mean the person who openly attacked me on Sunday asking me how I was worthy to paint icons for the church when I am the first among sinners, that person is clearly a Donatist.

Ah good. Not that he attacked you, but that you are not a Donatist.

Perhaps he was having some sort of struggle and it was making him angry.

 

[MKJ]

Another modern iteration, at least to me, is the Catholic view of the sacrament of marriage as it pertains to divorce vs. anullment.

In the RCC view (and I recall reading this in the CCC but don't feel like looking it up), the couple being married are the officients of the sacrament (not the material of the sacrament, as they are in Orthodox theology). Donatism, in a sense, says that sins of the officient can invalidate the sacrament. Annulment, in the RCC sense, CAN be predicated on the idea that one or both members of the marriage were not fully invested in the sacrament.

In other words, a flaw (a sin) on the part of the officient is being used as cause to declare the sacrament as having "never happened" - as being invalid.

That sounds like donatism to me. I've posed this question a few times to different RCC thinkers I respect (and there are many I have a deep respect for) and haven't yet recieved an answer that satisfied me. I'm not posting it to pose an argument against the RCC (i.e. I don't pose this question to RCC christians as a polemic against them) - more just a theological question that I'm either misunderstanding or which presents a potentially serious flaw in the RCC's current sacramental theology.

To me, the easiest thing (and the thing most consistent with the theology of other sacraments) is to have the married couple be the material of the sacrament, and the priest be the officient. No flaw in the priest could invalidate a marriage sacrament.

That, or recognize that the sacrament worked (i.e. was valid) but that human sin sullied it the same way that our sins post-baptism can sully our baptism (requiring confession and such). In other words, recognize divorce

In Christ,
Macarius

I think we've discussed this before. I agree that the sacramental theology of marriage is flawed in the CC- it is totally different than what is applied to other sacraments - but in this case I think the issue is not Donatism. In so far as the couple are administering the Sacrament, they are ok, even if they are drunk, or in a state of sin, or whatever.

It is as recipients of the sacrament that they are making the sacrament invalid. Although it is the same person, he is fulfilling two roles, but it is only in one that his sin is understood to make it invalid. I don't know if there is a formal heresy that corresponds to saying the sinfulness of the recipient invalidates the sacrament, but I think that would be a better comparison.

Another tack a Catholic might take is saying it isn't sin that is the issue - is is unwillingness to actually accept the Sacrament, as in actually setting one's will against God, even while going through the motions. I think this would get into a question of what sin is, among other things. If sin is setting oneself against God, then sin would be the problem.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

I think we've discussed this before. I agree that the sacramental theology of marriage is flawed in the CC- it is totally different than what is applied to other sacraments - but in this case I think the issue is not Donatism. In so far as the couple are administering the Sacrament, they are ok, even if they are drunk, or in a state of sin, or whatever.

It is as recipients of the sacrament that they are making the sacrament invalid. Although it is the same person, he is fulfilling two roles, but it is only in one that his sin is understood to make it invalid. I don't know if there is a formal heresy that corresponds to saying the sinfulness of the recipient invalidates the sacrament, but I think that would be a better comparison.

Another tack a Catholic might take is saying it isn't sin that is the issue - is is unwillingness to actually accept the Sacrament, as in actually setting one's will against God, even while going through the motions. I think this would get into a question of what sin is, among other things. If sin is setting oneself against God, then sin would be the problem.

Good points. I was hoping to say something about the intent of the recipient having some bearing on the efficacious reception of the Sacrament. But it seems like you did most of the work for me.

Also, from a Patristic perspective, I would like to point out, having just read the SVS Press edition of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses, that Saint Cyril taught that Simon Magus (as an example) did not really receive the grace of Baptism, though he received the form, precisely because his internal intent was not correct.

 

[Michael G]

Ah good. Not that he attacked you, but that you are not a Donatist.

Perhaps he was having some sort of struggle and it was making him angry.

This seems to have been the case. I just thank God my gaurdian angel kept a watch over my tongue and I did not fight fire with fire.

 

[musicluvr83]

It's Donatism, alright. This is a direct copy/paste from The Rudder (Pedalion):

"The Donatists were called from a certain Donatus who appeared in Africa and
who impiously thought that sinners in the Church transmitted or communicated an
infection from their sins to the others, in much the same way as ailing members of
the human body transmit the disease to the healthy members; and for this reason
he dogmatized that sinning persons ought to be cut off from the membership and
communion of the Church, and especially as regarding those Christians who for
fear of death gave the holy books to be burned in the time of Diocletian. He taught
his followers that when they had to commune they should hold in their hand some
human bone which they had previously kissed, and afterwards commune. As
against the Donatists various Synods were held also in Italy, but especially in
Africa; many Saints wrote works against them, especially St. Augustine; and even
St. Jerome in writing against the Luciferians wrote also against the Donatists, for
those persons held the same heretical views as the Donatists.

Note, however, that there is to be found a comment concerning the Donatists
saying that they were none other than the Massalians, or those called Euchites,
since Massalia is situated across the sea from Libya, towards the parts of Rome
which lie upon the river Tiber. These heretics used to say in addition that the
theoretical Church which had formerly existed had become extinct, and that it was
now to be found only in its synaxis. From the Donatists the Luthero-Calvinists
borrowed this view (see Dositheos on page 1156 of his Dodecabiblus). St.
Epiphanios, on the other hand, in Hairesei 59, states that the Donatists held the
views of Arius, or, more explicitly speaking, that in regard thereto the first, as they
say, dogmas of the faith erred, and that on this account too they were not only
schismatics, but also heretics, as they are called also by the present Synod in its
Canon LXVI."

 

[Michael G]

It's Donatism, alright. This is a direct copy/paste from The Rudder (Pedalion):

"The Donatists were called from a certain Donatus who appeared in Africa and
who impiously thought that sinners in the Church transmitted or communicated an
infection from their sins to the others, in much the same way as ailing members of
the human body transmit the disease to the healthy members; and for this reason
he dogmatized that sinning persons ought to be cut off from the membership and
communion of the Church, and especially as regarding those Christians who for
fear of death gave the holy books to be burned in the time of Diocletian. He taught
his followers that when they had to commune they should hold in their hand some
human bone which they had previously kissed, and afterwards commune. As
against the Donatists various Synods were held also in Italy, but especially in
Africa; many Saints wrote works against them, especially St. Augustine; and even
St. Jerome in writing against the Luciferians wrote also against the Donatists, for
those persons held the same heretical views as the Donatists.

Note, however, that there is to be found a comment concerning the Donatists
saying that they were none other than the Massalians, or those called Euchites,
since Massalia is situated across the sea from Libya, towards the parts of Rome
which lie upon the river Tiber. These heretics used to say in addition that the
theoretical Church which had formerly existed had become extinct, and that it was
now to be found only in its synaxis. From the Donatists the Luthero-Calvinists
borrowed this view (see Dositheos on page 1156 of his Dodecabiblus). St.
Epiphanios, on the other hand, in Hairesei 59, states that the Donatists held the
views of Arius, or, more explicitly speaking, that in regard thereto the first, as they
say, dogmas of the faith erred, and that on this account too they were not only
schismatics, but also heretics, as they are called also by the present Synod in its
Canon LXVI."

One of the many modern versions of Donatism reads that iconographers who are sinners are not worthy to paint the interiors of churches.

 

[musicluvr83]

One of the many modern versions of Donatism reads that iconographers who are sinners are not worthy to paint the interiors of churches.

I gotta laugh at that one...as if anyone - iconographer or not - is sinless? lol It's really a shame how people become so judgmental.

As Christ said to the Pharisees/Scribes when they wanted to stone the adulterous woman, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Not surprising that no one threw a stone.

 

[Michael G]

I gotta laugh at that one...as if anyone - iconographer or not - is sinless? lol It's really a shame how people become so judgmental.

As Christ said to the Pharisees/Scribes when they wanted to stone the adulterous woman, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Not surprising that no one threw a stone.

It is funny, you are about the 4th person to bring up that scripture when I told them about this instance.

 

[musicluvr83]

lol, well, it does fit rather well.

 

[Michael G]

lol, well, it does fit rather well.

It is sad how little people know and understand the Gospel.