|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Heresy
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Is the concept of heresy outmoded? Indeed, has it ever been more about the struggle for ecclesiastical and political power than the correction of supposed theological error?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I would have thought that all the fights over heresies were to some extent about power. You would need to be more explicit in each case as to why and to what extent. Many of the people fighting them often gained nothing from winning them, nor was it obvious they ever would do.
The majority of all the heresies I can think of (the Christological ones, the trinitarian ones and some of the gnostic ones) all involve some diminution or suppression of something, whilst elevating something else that would in other contexts be unexceptional. A more accurate characterisation of heresies like that would be that it is a diminution of the truth.
That probably won't cover them all, but it looks to me like it covers the biggies.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
Given that Christianity has now splintered into hundreds of variants or sub-sects or whatever we should call them, and that many, perhaps most (though certainly not all) of these splinter groups claim that the others are at some level "wrong," (and therefore, I assume, "heretical"), and that there is no way this side of death (nor from my PoV, after it, either) to settle the differences, I'd have to conclude not only that declarations of heresy are all about power, but about temporal, worldly power.
Frankly, to the extent that religious practice makes any sense at all, at least practice can be, well, practiced, and in just about any religion of your choice. Do the motions, say the words, perform the rituals, carry out the duties, and you can count yourself among (some group of) the faithful.
Believing the right things, though? What does that even mean? For me to pursue that further, this would have to be in Hell.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
I think 'heresy' is a horrific word to bandy about, and if I could ban it from all theological discussion across the world, I think I would. IMO it's a word used to shut down debate and get people to stick with our side without examining closely the arguments against.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I don't know about heresy as a legal concept, but FWIW Ken Leech says something somewhere to the effect that one of the hallmarks of a heresy is that it tries to shut down further debate. Orthodox theology, by contrast, provides a framework within which debate can continue.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
Can a man have a correct relationship with his wife if he thinks she's a lawnmower?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
I think instead that Christianity is much more about 'correct practice' (love your neighbour, i.e. feed them when they're hungry, etc.) springing from 'correct relationship' (love God, i.e. let him transform you into a new person by changing the way you think). We can believe exactly the right things - or at least give our assent to those things - and yet remain utterly untransformed by God's transforming power.
Can a man have a correct relationship with his wife if he thinks she's a lawnmower?
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
One of the most fascinating books of church history that I ever read is When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein. Rubenstein is a professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, not a theologian. But his perspective on the conflict between Arians and Athanasians is an absolutely riveting read. If you can read about this absolutely pivotal period of Church history and come away imagining that this was not first and foremost a power struggle, you have vastly more imagination than I. We tend to paper over that fact with bromides about the Church being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, but without such magical incantations, Church history is just an open cess pool of human excess.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
The thing is, I think the difference between Athanasian and Arian christologies is several orders of magnitude greater than the difference between blue and brown eyes.
[ 22. July 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Rubenstein is a professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, not a theologian. But his perspective on the conflict between Arians and Athanasians is an absolutely riveting read. If you can read about this absolutely pivotal period of Church history and come away imagining that this was not first and foremost a power struggle, you have vastly more imagination than I. We tend to paper over that fact with bromides about the Church being under the protection of the Holy Spirit, but without such magical incantations, Church history is just an open cess pool of human excess.
Is Rubinstein's work primarily a work of disinterested historical discovery, or is it primarily a contribution to a power struggle? It seems to me that if a Professor of Public Affairs decides to branch into Church History then it's just possible that his primary agenda is sticking it to the Religious Right. That's a worthy motive I admit. But if someone starts researching a book outside their field of expertise with the primary aim of sticking it to the religious right that's grounds for thinking they might have decided what evidence they were going to find prior to finding it.
The claim that it's all primarily about power struggles is a claim that implicates itself.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
We are frequently reminded these days that the word 'believe' has relatively recently changed its meaning from 'to commit oneself totally' (believe – belove) to 'assent to (or credit) certain statements'.
Heresy (from Greek choosing/ a choice) became in Johnson's dictionary, 'an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church'.
I am a heretic because I question and explore, and find the formulations of 4th century church functionaries mainly irrelevant. But don't tell me I'm not a Christian.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Raising questions about heresy inevitably points to the fact that Christianity is largely about "correct belief."
Given that Christianity has now splintered into hundreds of variants or sub-sects or whatever we should call them, and that many, perhaps most (though certainly not all) of these splinter groups claim that the others are at some level "wrong," (and therefore, I assume, "heretical"), and that there is no way this side of death (nor from my PoV, after it, either) to settle the differences, I'd have to conclude not only that declarations of heresy are all about power, but about temporal, worldly power.
Frankly, to the extent that religious practice makes any sense at all, at least practice can be, well, practiced, and in just about any religion of your choice. Do the motions, say the words, perform the rituals, carry out the duties, and you can count yourself among (some group of) the faithful.
Believing the right things, though? What does that even mean? For me to pursue that further, this would have to be in Hell.
Another way to look at the situation is to say that the Church is diverse. They are different because they come from or are located in different cultures and express themselves differently. Diversity is a good thing. God loves and created diversity.
We can hold the same creeds and have different practice and emphasis on doctrines. Ecumenicalism or cross denominational movements are growing. The most problems with multiplication of schism is in those traditions that seek purity by cutting themselves off.
Of course we are all wrong on some level. Admitting it is an entry requirement. The Church needs to be challenged and members need to learn of each others traditions. It is a hard to avoid stepping over the line of being challenged and into division.
Practice- producing fruit of love, peace, joy etc. is as important if not more important than the minutia of doctrine. The practice of rite, ritual and other disciplines are of no benefit in themselves (to paraphrase Richard Foster, it is the benefit that they produce that we are after.
The question is one of perception: half full versus half empty. Overall I would say that Christians have far more in common than different.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
HERESY is about who won and who lost. The winners are orthodox. The losers are heretics.
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
For those who think the definition of heresy is only ever about power, it might be worth pointing out that many anti-heretical writings pre-date the association of Christianity with any real worldly or political power. Irenaeus's Against Heresies, for example, dates from the 2nd century, when often the only power a Christian might enjoy was the power to be first in the queue to be martyred.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Saying that it's all about consolidating political power is certainly a handy way to advance the viewpoint that what you believe really doesn't matter.
This is bullshit, IMO. Heresy has often been about control. It may not always be. To point this out does not inherently endorse any particular view.
HERESY is about who won and who lost. The winners are orthodox. The losers are heretics.
Bollocks, of course, unless you really don't believe in one Apostolic and Catholic faith, in which case you might as well believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster as each belief is, no doubt, equally valid.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
AO - the thing is not that all beliefs are equally valid, but that we have no objective means of deciding for definite which one of a set of beliefs is actually correct.
The Catholics tell me they're right because the Magisterium tells them so.
Your lot tell me they're right because the Tradition tells them so.
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
It's not that there isn't objective truth. It's just that we have no objective means of ascertaining it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool. It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Perhaps not, but if he thinks his wife has brown eyes and they are in fact hazel, then I doubt it makes much difference. Heck, if his wife doesn't like the taste of green beans and he thinks she does, that's unfortunate but not a major problem.
Thank you, Arethosemyfeet; my thoughts exactly. And nicely put, tclune!
The thing is, I think the difference between Athanasian and Arian christologies is several orders of magnitude greater than the difference between blue and brown eyes.
Okay, but, will you concede that at least the emphasis is skewed. The fact that we have Orthodox (correct belief) as the name of a major part of Christianity rather than Orthopraxy (correct action) or whatever else, that the church has a disproportional preoccupation with people believing the "right things". That the creeds were written and the councils convened to exclude purely on the basis of particular beliefs?
Jesus' emphasis seemed to be based around people Loving correctly, not Believing correctly. That's not to say that beliefs aren't important. However, was it right that for the church beliefs became the MOST important thing?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
The Cathars?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
How odd.
Do you even know what 'Protestant fundamentalism' is?
The term comes from these 'fundamental' points of doctrine:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Now you might want to quibble about the first one; you might want to argue about the last one but you can't say that they are confined to Protestantism or even evangelicalim.
I can't see how you can allege that any of them are unBiblical.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The fundy prots tell me they're right because the Bible (as interpreted through documents such as the Westminster Confession and Calvin's Institutes etc. etc.) tells them so.
But these authorities are themselves arbitrarily chosen, and the beliefs that flow from acceptance of them therefore equally so.
This is a little bit selling the pass. The claim that fundamentalist Protestantism of whatever flavour you prefer flows directly from accepting the Bible, (plus or minus favoured interpretative document), can be shown to be be false.
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
But it's orthogonal to the point I was making, which was that there's a grouping that claims that they're right (and everyone else wrong where the disagree with them) and that claim is based, at least in these people's minds, on a particular authority - in this case Scripture as interpreted according to an authoritative tradition.
The problem, as with the big-O Tradition and the Magisterium, is that accepting that foundational authority is itself axiomatic and subjective.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But you don't BELIEVE in exactly the way he does, so you are obviously heretical.
Which is exactly how the word heresy has been used since it was invented: the specific belief of the person throwing the accusation is not to be questioned in any way, and any form of doubt or difference must be quashed.
The only difference from ages past is that we don't automatically kill anyone who is heretical nowadays.
It's all gone down the tubes since the time of Luther. He was protected by those nasty secularists, and didn't die conveniently. Once you let heretics loose, the whole thing goes to pot.
(sorry, slow to react. Skip back one post for context)
[ 23. July 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Bollocks, of course, unless you really don't believe in one Apostolic and Catholic faith
I believe in one Church. There are many variations of faith within it, and long may that continue. As long as we all believe different things there's at least a chance that one of us has got it right - if we all believe the same thing, the odds are we're all wrong.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Does anyone accuse anyone else of heresy these days? Yes, we all criticise each other's theology: too liberal or too fundamentalist or too non-committal, to put it extremely crudely. But does the word heresy have any currency outside of discussions like this, or gentle ribbing between friendly people of different persuasions?
I don't see how Anglicans in their broad church manner, or small denominations of relatively recent vintage, or the vast number of Protestant denominations that grudgingly or willingly tolerate ecumenical diversity, can have any truck with a word like heresy. To me, the word is of little use outside of a historical RC context.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I've heard it from my conservative evangelical friends, though probably less often than "unorthodox" or "un-sound", which are pretty much synonyms. It'd usually be found at the same time they're talking about "bibically sound" or "bible-based" teaching.
The accusations are usually aimed at fellow protestants / evangelicals who have a different theological emphasis though, not RCs, orthodox or whoever - they're pretty much off the radar (though maybe Mormons & JWs might be described as such) - the closer people are theologically, it seems, the more likely one is to accuse the other of heresy. Hence the accusations of heresy for Rob Bell, Steve Chalke etc. from fellow evangelicals.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
goperryrevs
That's interesting. I suppose you can't accuse people of breaking away from your movement's established teachings if they never held to those teachings in the first place, but you can if it's a question of people who've moved from a shared position to a different one.
Presumably this only works in environments where people are expected to believe more or less the same thing in any case. The mainstream congregations - even the Catholics - don't really have that expectation any more, I feel. They're held together by a shared tradition, heritage, mutual respect and cultural values rather than by doctrines as such.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
Okay.
quote:
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
"Physical" not in the Creed.
quote:
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Not in the Creed.
The Creed is the Contract.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool.
I agree! However, do you agree that Science says what is true as far as they can test it at the moment, but as soon as this can be updated, that update will replace the previous theory.
quote:
It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
On the whole, I'd rather be on the fan-boys, or of course in my case fan-girls, side of the argument. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see how there can be objective truth. How can a subjective person discover it? I think there is intersubjective truth, but note that science doesn't operate with 'truth', since it is a practical tool.
I agree! However, do you agree that Science says what is true as far as they can test it at the moment, but as soon as this can be updated, that update will replace the previous theory.
quote:
It is science fan-boys who pretend that science is about truth.
On the whole, I'd rather be on the fan-boys, or of course in my case fan-girls, side of the argument.
No, I don't agree, and you are contradicting yourself. Science makes observations about appearances, but does not claim that these appearances are 'true' or 'real'. This is because science operates practically. The claim that appearances are 'true' or correspond to reality is not a scientific claim, not would it be a desirable one, as then science would get bogged down interminably in philosophical debate. People like Bacon freed science from this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
Not in the Creed.
quote:
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
Okay.
quote:
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
"Physical" not in the Creed.
quote:
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Not in the Creed.
The Creed is the Contract.
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Heresy has often been about control.
This is safely vague. Can you substantiate this assertion by citing an example? And would you be prepared to defend it against objections?
Galileo. Witch trials. The Knights Templar. Joan of Arc. The various Inquisitions. The Reformation. Need more?
These examples are all taken from Western church history. I had thought that maybe a Roman Catholic would come along and take you to task, but it hasn't happened so far, and I don't think any conclusion can be drawn from such a non-appearance. A Protestant might conceivably want to weigh in on the Reformation.
I have my own doubts as to whether all the examples cited are cases of heresy being used as a pretext for controlling people, property or countries (I assume that is what heresy being about control means), but I do not feel qualified to defend abuses (if they are such) which have taken place in another church.
If you have an extensive list of similar cases, of impeccable historical pedigree, occurring often enough to be labelled often, then you might be able to get away with claiming that heresy, in the Roman Catholic Church, has often been about control, or even that it was about control during a particular historical period (and maybe then for particular, historically significant reasons). I do so abominate generalisations, and I suspect that they are often about control. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
The context of the Creed is the liturgy. Between them they provide an ample space in which an orthodox Christianity can flourish. The kinds of "doctrinal statement" that seek to augment the Creed and prescribe a single way of interpreting scripture or a single way of thinking of the atonement are themselves heretical because they seek to narrow that space.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa
I wouldn't say that heresy is often about control. I would argue heresy is about control, full stop. It is about who is in and who is out, and who gets to make these determinations. Sounds like contol to me.
So anything can be preached from the pulpit?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Creed is meaningless if it is decontextualised. The things you mention are not in the Creed because the Creed wasn't meant to address them either because they were completely settled issues or no questions had been seriously raised over them. To try and avoid assenting to them simply because they aren't in the Creed is the worst kind of reductionist weaseling.
The context of the Creed is the liturgy. Between them they provide an ample space in which an orthodox Christianity can flourish. The kinds of "doctrinal statement" that seek to augment the Creed and prescribe a single way of interpreting scripture or a single way of thinking of the atonement are themselves heretical because they seek to narrow that space.
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
We are frequently reminded these days that the word 'believe' has relatively recently changed its meaning from 'to commit oneself totally' (believe – belove) to 'assent to (or credit) certain statements'.
Heresy (from Greek choosing/ a choice) became in Johnson's dictionary, 'an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church'.
GG
I think you'll find the word "heresy" had that meaning long before Dr Johnson.
And you're correct, to a point, about the meaning of "believe" : but belief has an object, and the total commitment you speak of above is to the revelation of God we receive from Scripture, the Creeds, and sacred tradition--not to a privately-constructed idol that gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The term comes from these 'fundamental' points of doctrine:
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Now you might want to quibble about the first one; you might want to argue about the last one but you can't say that they are confined to Protestantism or even evangelicalim.
I can't see how you can allege that any of them are unBiblical.
I'd certainly claim that one, two b, four b, and five it is perfectly consistent with the text of the Bible to reject those two and two half propositions.
I don't know what you mean by unbiblical. If you mean, incompatible with the text of the Bible, I wasn't saying that. If you mean that it would be incompatible with the text of the Bible to reject them, then I certainly can and do allege it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore, there is at least one thing that can be known with certainty to be objectively true: namely that the beliefs of fundamentalist Protestantism do not flow directly from the Bible.
But it's orthogonal to the point I was making, which was that there's a grouping that claims that they're right (and everyone else wrong where the disagree with them) and that claim is based, at least in these people's minds, on a particular authority - in this case Scripture as interpreted according to an authoritative tradition.
Sorry; I misquoted. The bit I was really aiming at was:
quote:
It's not that there isn't objective truth. It's just that we have no objective means of ascertaining it.
If you'd said 'no entirely objective means' I'd have agreed with you. But that's not a reason to give up. Choosing an arbitrary authority is not the only way of arguing ourselves towards the truth.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I don't know about heresy as a legal concept, but FWIW Ken Leech says something somewhere to the effect that one of the hallmarks of a heresy is that it tries to shut down further debate. Orthodox theology, by contrast, provides a framework within which debate can continue.
Here it is: quote:
…there is a creative orthodoxy which is not only compatible with, but also of necessity involves, a critical, subversive, movement of interrogation and of resistance, a continuing encounter between things new and old. Indeed orthodoxy ….is not stifling but inclusive, not fearful but risk taking, not simplistic but rooted in ambiguity and paradox. The rejection of paradox and ambiguity is the characteristic of heretics in all ages as both Irenaeus in the second century and G.K. Chesterton in the twentieth century saw. Heresy is one-dimensional, narrow, over-simplified, and boring. It is straight-line thinking, preferring a pseudo-clarity to the many-sidedness of truth, tidiness to the mess and complexity of reality. Orthodoxy by contrast is rooted and grounded in the unknowable, in the incomprehensible mystery of God.
Subversive Orthodoxy – Ken Leech pp.49-50
[ 23. July 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Which ones? There were three Constantinoples, two Nicaeas. And an Ephesus and a Chalcedon, too. And I'm quite conversant with all of 'em, thanks very much.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I wonder if you've actually ever read the decrees and canons of the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople?
Which ones? There were three Constantinoples, two Nicaeas. And an Ephesus and a Chalcedon, too. And I'm quite conversant with all of 'em, thanks very much.
Well, seeing as the discussion had moved to the Creed the first two ecumenical councils Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). I am glad you mentioned the seventh council though because it has an interesting part in it, though no doubt you'll want to put your fingers in your ears:
"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nicholas´ slapping of Arius´ face was the greater heresy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
