"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron."
1.Timothy 4:1-2
Heresy
Heresy, in the wider sense, is any doctrine, which, though it bears on the one side a Christian, religious character, contains elements at war with the principle of Christianity itself. Just as the conception of that principle is more or less sharply defined, will a view of what is heretical vary. In modern times many of the so-called heresies have been regarded as necessary steps in the development of doctrine - by which it has been brought out into clear consciousness. The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State.
There are, besides the Orthodox Church, other Eastern Churches, which are no more in communion with her than they are with Rome. To the Orthodox Christian an Armenian, a Copt, a Jacobite is just as much a heretic and a schismatic as a Latin or a Protestant. Though no other Eastern Church can be compared to the Orthodox for size, nevertheless at least some of them (that of the Armenians, for instance) are large and important bodies. Their situation is not difficult to grasp. All spring from the two great heresies of the 5th century, Nestorianism, condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, and its extreme opposite, Monophysism, condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These two heresies account for all the other separated Eastern Churches, besides the Orthodox. Theologically, these groups are diametrically opposed to each other; they are poles apart. Nestorianism divides Christ into two persons, Monophysism confuses him into one nature.
Arianism was for a long time the religion of various barbarous races (the Goths, for instance), but it died out many centuries ago. There is now no Arian Church. The Pelagian heresy never formed an organized Church. Manicheism made communities which afterwards disappeared. It is one side of a very great movement that produced all manner of curious sects in East and West till far into the Middle Ages — Bogomils, Paulicians, Albigensians, Bonshommes, and so on. All these too have practically disappeared, though in the West (Bohemia) the last remnant of this movement may have had something to do with the beginning of the Reformation. In the East, the Paulicians and Bogomils had a rather important history. But they too disappeared. Monotheletism formed a Church which has long returned to the Catholic faith, and is now the one example of an entirely Uniate body, having no schismatical counterpart.
So all existing separated Eastern Churches, other than the Orthodox, are either Nestorian or Monophysite. So far the situation is simple. Now enters another factor of enormous importance, at any rate to Catholics. At various times certain members, sometimes bishops and Patriarchs, of these three main classes of Eastern Churches (Orthodox, Nestorians, Monophysites) have repented of their state of schism from the Roman See and have come back to reunion. These are the Uniates.
According to the evangelical view, the principle of Christianity is the absolute reconciliation of man with God, in Christ and through Christ: and as that principle is attacked in its presumptions there are four classes of heresies in all: -
- Those which do not fully acknowledge the guilt and corruption of human nature (Pelagianism and Manicheism).
- Those which entertain such ideas of God that the necessity or possibility of atonement, or its mediation in the person of Christ, or its ethical character is contravened: here belong not only Pantheism, but Antitrinitarianism along with Ebionism and Docetism, and the Nestorian and Monophysite doctrine, so fur as it concerns God in his relation to the world and man, if the atonement in Christ is to be regarded as efficacious in a real, absolute and practical way.
- Those which alter the consequences of the atonement on the side of God and in bis relation to man: here belong the worship of saints, false mediation assumed by the visible Church, the sacrifice of the mass, as well as the disparagement of the means of grace by the Anabaptists.
- Those which alter the consequences of the atonement on the side of man; here belong Antinomianism, which subverts its ethical character and work, righteousness, which mars its completeness.
As the Church in the course of ages developed her faith and embodied its various points in creeds and confessions, heresy came to mean any doctrine that conflicts with the fundamental articles thus established. But since the evangelical Church only admits a presumption in their favor, and lays no claim to absolute infallibility and perfection, she yields to every dissenting member the right of appeal to the divine norm of the apostolic testimony. He is bound, however, to produce proof for any such exceptio veritatis; and if this cannot be done, or is refused, she has a right to treat such dissent as heresy. Hence, in the older books of discipline, the dissenter is enjoined, before he ventures to publish his doctrine, to hold a discussion with the organs of the Church. If the matter be old, and no new arguments are advanced, it is sufficient for the Church simply to refer to former decisions.
In its relation to existing ecclesiastical organizations heresy assumes a still narrower meaning. It exhibits an aggressive character, sets itself up against law and order, becomes sectarian, and so long as this is wanting, it is rather to be called error than heresy. As long ai dissent remains mere private opinion, or sets itself forth as pure scientific speculation, it may be tolerated, although contended against and excluded from the pulpit; but when it lays claims to bo considered an article of faith, and invades the Church in a revolutionary way, it must be met and crushed by ecclesiastical discipline.
The question now arises, how far heresy is to be regarded as a civil crime, and punished as such. The evangelical maxim, that it is no civil crime, is, in the main, true ; but when a sect promulgates in the name of religion such doctrines as lead directly to the subversion of those principles of order and morality, upon which all good government rests, it certainly becomes amenable to the civil law. The Church then exercises tolerance only toward scientific error, not heresy; the State is more liberal; yet even this liberality has its limits; and, in case the State is decidedly Christian in its fundamental laws and social order, the restriction may be greater, so that it may not only protect itself from any danger that threatens its civil life, but refuse to recognize a sect as standing on the same ground with the established Church, or churches.
From the very first Luther opposed those, who fought against heresy with fire and sword instead of the Word of God, because unable to sustain their faith by Scripture; and was inclined to ask the civil authorities to make over heretics to the evangelical Church to vanquish them by convincing and persuading: thus in opposition to Carlstadt's violent measures he gave counsel in favor of mild reproof and instruction. And yet he did not intend thereby to encourage the State quietly to suffer its subjects to be misled by a heretical propaganda. It was a cardinal principle with all the Reformers, that the State was bound not to tolerate blasphemy, but to use all lawful measures to prevent the growth of sectarianism. Only in certain cases, Luther admitted the employment of civil penalties against heretics, less however on account of their doctrines, than of the practice flowing from them. Zwingli stands near to him in this respect, although he favored the bloody vengeance which overtook the Anabaptists in Switzerland. Calvin goes further, and with his theocratical ideas makes it obligatory upon the State, to treat heresy like blasphemy with the severest punishments.
The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonorable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed". Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.
Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes. Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.
There was an attempt to modify, at the beginning of this century, the Catholic standpoint on Modernism and adapt the church to the humanitarian tendencies of contemporary society. Pius X in his encyclical 'Pascendi,' of September 8, 1907, said 'Modernism embraces every heresy.'
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
