|
Post by Admin on Feb 1, 2019 16:10:47 GMT
The Angelus - February 1980
Heresy! Part 1: Gnosticism
The article on the history of Americanism in our November 1979 issue evoked considerable interest—particularly in the extent to which errors which are destroying the American Church today are simply a repetition of the errors of that particular heresy. We have asked Pastor Historicus to provide us with a series of articles on the major heresies which have plagued the Church since Her foundation to enable our readers to appreciate the extent to which the so-called "brilliant new insights" of contemporary Modernist theologians are no more than a re-hash of very stale and long discredited old heresies! This promises to be one of the most interesting series which we have yet run!
WHEN OUR LORD prayed "that they all may be one," He must have foreseen that in the years to come there would be many "break-away" movements from the Church He founded. Human nature is not perfect; it is weak, subject to the temptations of the Devil, the World, and the Flesh. Members of Christ's Church are not exempt from these temptations. Sometimes they fall. Often they recover with the help of God's grace, but sometimes the fall has terrible effects.
A heretic in Canon Law is a baptized person who doubts or denies a doctrine of the Catholic Church as handed on to us by the teaching authority of the Church. Divine revelation of the truths of our faith ended with the death of the last Apostle. Since then, the development of doctrine has consisted in the drawing out of the fullness of this revelation and giving it a precise formulation (often in response to the attacks of heretics).
Often heresies are introduced by only one person who is almost individually responsible for all that happens afterwards. These men are often rightly called "Arch-heretics" and have much in common although the heresies they spread may vary widely. They all start by turning against the Church's teaching authority (the Magisterium) in favor of their own man-made views. They start with man as base instead of God. Very often they attempt to reinterpret some element of revelation in terms of the current philosophy of their time. Then there is the question of the great sin of Pride. All the Arch-heretics from Gnostics, such as Marcion, down through Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin; Modernists like Loisy, and neo-Modemists like Hans Küng, all display intellectual pride. They always know better than the institutional Church. The Magisterium is out of step with them, not they with the Church. Where there is some element of mystery about our Faith—the great mysteries of the Trinity, the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the working of Grace—they must find an easy, "more rational" explanation to suit "modern man."
Although most readers will probably think of the major heresies as something new in each generation, recent evidence goes to confirm the theory already widely held, that the elements of every known heresy had already appeared by the middle of the 2nd century AD.
Even during the lives of the Apostles, there were disputes, arguments, and break-away movements. Two main features stand out in the Apostolic age: first, the Jewish convert who envisaged Christianity only in terms of Judaism and tried to insist that all pagan converts should become Jews first and obey Jewish Law. In the Acts of the Apostles this matter was settled by the Council of Jerusalem, but there is evidence that the troubles continued for quite a time afterwards. After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Judaic heretics were unable to accept that Rome, the abomination of desolation, could ever be the center of true religion. Gradually they drifted back to ordinary Judaism.
A more serious threat to the new Church was posed by contact with the pagan world. There were not lacking those converts who wanted to incorporate elements of paganism directly into Christianity. The early Gentile heretics were probably those who had favored mystery cults of Egyptian or Persian origin. These cults offered something deeper than the official state religion. They promised deliverance from sin and death through a revelation of their own. The most important mystery cult was Mithraism. It is impossible to understand Gnosticism properly without first considering this cult. Mithraism originated in Persia many centuries before Christ and spread to Rome in the course of time through trade. In this system there is a principle of good—god of light, and a principle of evil—Ahriman. To combat the evil principle, intermediate beings are created. Mithra is one such being who becomes the greatest of heroes, protector of mankind and equal to the God of light himself. Mithra has a conflict with a creature of the evil principle, the Bull. He ascends to heaven but will come again, slay the bull, and destroy the principle of evil and all other devils. After this the faithful will have immortality. The followers of Mithra had a strict moral code and their own peculiar rites—usually performed in a cave. Mithra's birthday was kept at the Winter Solstice—December 25th!
Gnosticism
The word is derived from the Greek word "Gnosis" meaning knowledge. As a heresy, it took many forms but they all have certain points in common. They all put their particular brand of "knowledge" above the revealed religion. Recent evidence which I shall consider later in more detail confirms the view that between them the Gnostics introduced the main elements of every known heresy. The new evidence is contained in recently discovered manuscripts from Nag Hammada in Egypt. The documents include false Gospels like the "Gospel of Saint Thomas" and "the Secret Book of James." These books enlarge our knowledge of the Gnostics and in particular the way they lived. We can see just how great a threat they posed to the newly emerging Church.
There are several strands to Gnosticism but I will take the main three, the Valentians, the Marcionites, and the Montanists. Some authors separate them but they all arose at the same time, the middle of the 2nd century.
The Valentians
Valentinus lived in Rome and hoped to succeed Pope St. Hyginus after the latter's death in AD 140. When he failed to win election he broke with the Church. His followers were very numerous. In his system there is a dual principle at the origin of all things and matter is to be hated as a necessary evil. Between the unique "God" the Father and the world is a whole universe of "demi-gods." Quite low down in the order is the Creator, known as "demi-urge." He believes incorrectly that he is the superior being; he is the creator of material men—and a bad god—to be resisted. He is, in fact, the god of the Old Testament and the Jews. (A common feature of Gnosticism is the supposed opposition between the Old and New Testaments.) In the Valentinian system there are three types of men, material men who cannot be saved, the spiritual men (Gnostics) who do not need salvation, and "animate" men who may be saved. A more refined version of this view of men may be found in Calvin later on. The redeemer is Christ Who is spiritual, with only the appearance of the material. The Passion is only an act and "redemption" is due to the knowledge of secret traditions and mysteries which will then lead to an understanding of the Gospel. (Justification by faith alone and private interpretation of the Scriptures—later to emerge in Protestantism.)
Marcionism
Marcion came to Rome in the year AD 135 as a Catholic and taught there for twenty years, developing his own heresy. He was excommunicated in AD 144. His starting point is the radical opposition between the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament was to reverse the Old—but the Apostles, through prejudice or lack of courage, failed in their task of purging revealed religion from Old Testament blemishes. (Compare the so-called Scripture scholars of today who allege that we must return to primitive Christianity unfettered by the Judaising tendencies that come to the fore after Apostolic times.) St. Paul was an exception to all this but his works contained "interpolations" by his opponents. Marcion edited a "revised" edition of the Pauline epistles and introduced a new morality based on rigorous asceticism including perpetual celibacy. He set up a complete rival church with its own hierarchy and sacramental ritual. Marcionism continued to flourish in certain parts right up until the fifth century.
Montanism
This movement was based in Asia Minor and is the originator of all those movements which attempted to foretell the second coming of Christ, like the Jehovah's Witnesses of today. Montanus was a convert to Christianity but had formerly been a priest of the goddess Cybele. He stressed the importance of private revelation over the official teaching hierarchy. He claimed that the Holy Ghost was speaking through him. (Compare, say, the modern charismatic movement whose members claim exactly the same thing, the proponents of innumerable private revelations, and those also who claim that the Holy Ghost is now leading the Church along completely new paths.)
Montanus claimed the end of the world was at hand and that Christ would come down at Pepusa (near modern Ankara). A complete city grew up there awaiting the Messiah. Even though the end did not come as expected, the sect grew and Montanism lasted into the fourth century. Tertullian, a great Catholic theologian of the time, unfortunately became a Montanist at the end of his life. They followed a strict moral code. Bishop after bishop spoke out against them precisely because they claimed the authority of the Holy Ghost to supplement the Deposit of Faith.
It is interesting to note that most of these sects who really believed in some form or other of predestination adopted a strict moral code. If you are absolutely predestined, then presumably it does not matter how you behave. There were indeed a few minor Gnostic sects who did take this more logical approach. Later on we find the Calvinists insisting on a strict moral code while the Molinists in Spain lived extremely immoral lives. The neo-Modernists of today have of course opted for the latter line. They have opted to explain sin away altogether, particularly mortal sin—saying that serious sin is impossible unless you have a total aversion from God.
The Nag Hammada Discoveries
Certain interesting points have come to light in the Nag Hammada documents. First, there is a hint of femininity about the ultimate God. One prayer speaks of "Thee Father and Thee Mother, the two immortal names." The idea of a feminine God is quite popular with the women's libbers of today and can be found also in the American Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, who pointed out that the Divine Attribute "Wisdom" was a feminine pronoun!
From the Gnostic view that Christ was only "spiritual," it follows that there is no Blessed Trinity, and there is a complete denial of the Virgin birth and, as far as that goes, any real "birth" of Christ at all. The "Gospel of Philip" (which accepts that the ultimate God is female) says of the traditional view, "they do not know what they are saying—when did a woman ever conceive by a woman." We can compare this with the modern theologians who deny any historical value to the childhood narratives in the Gospels.
The physical resurrection of Christ was denied by all Gnostics. They considered that the Risen Christ was an experience in his followers' minds. In the "Gospel of Mary," Mary Magdalene sees Jesus after His resurrection and asks Him how exactly she is seeing Him. Jesus replies, "through the mind." We can compare this with today's liberal thinkers who also deny the reality of the Resurrection and say it is only the "faith of the Apostles projected as teaching."
The Gnostics as we have seen accepted many tenets from pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own faith. Today we find even Catholics saying that the Christian vision of Truth will actually profit by being "corrected" by elements drawn from Hinduism and Buddhism. Dialogue with these faiths is to be encouraged! I have already shown that the Gnostics claim that their own inner light of experience is of greater value than the authority of the Church. Today many Catholics freely say that they "cannot in conscience" accept certain doctrines of the Church.
Together with a cavalier attitude to the organized Church and Holy Scripture came a nonchalant attitude to the Priesthood. If anyone at all could attain "gnosis" then anyone could be a priest. Many Gnostic sects had women priestesses. Mary Magdalene was given a special place in the Gnostic writings. She ranked higher than the Apostles. Christ was said to be physically in love with her. Compare this blasphemy with a notorious song from the show "Jesus Christ Superstar." Note also that the neo-Modemists like the arch-heretic Küng especially attack the sacred Priesthood.
Many modern scholars are now using the Nag Hammada documents to try and prove their view that the Catholic Church "got it all wrong" after Apostolic times. They ask us to accept this "new" material as "closer to primitive truth." But in reality it proves just the opposite. Just when these horrible heresies were at their height, a great Catholic theologian, St. Irenaeus, arose to confound and confront these sick minds and to put forth clearly and succinctly the truths of the Catholic Faith. The Church was being torn apart at the seams but it survived as it will always survive the onslaughts of heretics. But in each succeeding generation there will be more trials to bear as the history of subsequent heresies will show. In our time the Church is once again being torn by neo-Modemists dragging up hoary heresies, and claiming they are new and in tune with the needs of modern man. But they are not new—in fact, they are merely a rehash of the Gnosticism of the 2nd century, given a fresh coat of paint ready to deceive, if possible, even the elect. [Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 2, 2019 15:29:49 GMT
The Angelus - April 1980 Heresy! Part 2: The Trinitarian Heresies
by Pastor Historicus
In the second part of his series on heresy, Pastor Historicus examines some of the principal Trinitarian heresies. These heresies frequently centered around extremely technical and complex aspects of this central doctrine of our Faith where a word, or even a letter, could spell the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. Although this article does not always make easy reading, it will be found that a careful study of the Trinitarian heresies is the most effective means of deepening our understanding of this sublime doctrine.
Sabellius
No sooner had the Church recovered from the Gnostic heresies, than She was racked by a long series of attacks on the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Even in the Gnostic heresy there were indications of an attack on this most sacred belief but now, for over three hundred years, this was to be the chief problem which troubled the Church. Sabellius came to Rome about 200 AD, and brought with him a development of an earlier heresy preached by a certain Praxeas who had taught that God the Father descended into the Virgin Mary and was Himself born of her and Himself suffered. Thus, Jesus Christ was totally identified with the Father. This version of the heresy is known by the cumbersome title of "Patripassian1 Monarchism" because its proponents put forward the view that it was the Father who suffered.
Sabellius developed this view even further. He taught that God is one Person manifested in three ways. In the Old Law there was God the Father; in the time of Christ there was God the Son; and later on, there was God the Holy Spirit. God the Father is regarded as an "orb" of power from which comes forth the Divine emanation of Wisdom (Logos) and then Love (Holy Spirit). However once the work of the Spirit is accomplished this "tri-une" personality disappears and God remains in His "simplicity." The heresy is sometimes called "Modalism" because it regards the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as merely modes of the Divine Being.
Arius
Arianism is by far the best known of the Trinitarian heresies. Arius was a priest at Alexandria and was known for his ascetical way of life and for being a preacher of talent. Arius had studied at Antioch under a priest named Lucian who was himself a disciple of a certain Paul of Samosata. This Paul was excommunicated for teaching a form of Adoptianism. (The Adoptionists taught that Christ was not truly divine but merely the son of Mary and Joseph whom God had adopted as His Son.)
Arius started to preach his own developed version of this heresy around AD 319. He pointed out to an assembly of clerics that "if God the Son was begotten of the Father, does that not imply that the Father existed before Him?" Arius alleged that as "Son" He follows and comes after the Father, and is not eternal. Christ was the first and highest creature of God, the only being directly created by God so that by and through Him He might create the universe. He was then exalted to share in the Divine prerogatives. When it was argued against Arius that this would mean that Christ's nature was mutable and it would be possible for such a person to commit sin, Arius allowed that indeed it was possible for Christ to sin but, in fact, He did not do so.
Arius was excommunicated by his bishop and sought the protection of Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, who adopted his views. Arius withdrew the worst of his blasphemies or, rather, hid them behind some ambiguous expressions. He posed, like Hans Küng today, as a persecuted, misunderstood and innocent believer. The similarity does not end there for, like Küng, he popularized his teachings in books and pamphlets. Furthermore, the position of Dr. Küng on the Divinity of Christ is virtually the same as that of Arius.
The disputes in the Church came to the ear of the recently converted Emperor Constantine who arranged for the Bishops to meet at Nicea in 325 for the famous council which bears that name. It was essential to find some term that would insure man's belief in the true Godhead of the Son. This, word was to be homoousios which means "of one substance with" or "consubstantial" in the correct translation of the Creed. The Arians now tried to evade the issue by objecting that this expression (homoousios) was not to be found in Holy Scripture. Witness today the number of "theologians" who talk glibly of "returning to the simplicity of Holy Scripture" in order to cover up their own deviations from the truth.
The Bishops would have none of it and insisted on "consubstantial." Arius was excommunicated again and the Emperor insisted that acceptance of the findings of the Council was a duty not only of the Church but of the State. However, the Arians were only biding their time. Five years after the Council they rose up again and created turmoil. Discreetly suggesting that the word homoousios might be interpreted in the sense that Sabellius had used (i.e. the Father and the Son are the same), the Arians suggested a new word, homoiousios, "of like substance." Just one letter in the Greek word changes orthodoxy into heresy and denies the Divinity of Christ! Some bishops who had subscribed to the formulas of Nicea now decided that the decrees of this Council were overly rigid. They considered that the aim of religion is to be respectable, tolerant, and broadminded. What was needed was a formula which men of varying opinions could sign while understanding the term in widely different senses. This is roughly the position of the Anglican Church today, on all its doctrines. Subscribe to 39 Articles, yes . . . but what they mean is up to the individual to decide! Truth, in other words, is a relative term. We should try hard not to upset people by insisting upon the truth!
During this time, a great champion of the Faith was Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. He carried on an implacable fight for orthodoxy. He was twice expelled and twice returned to the See of Alexandria before, finally, he was forced to flee into exile in 356, just in time to avoid being murdered by the emperor's soldiers. The history of these stormy days is too involved to be given in detail but the main outlines are important to our narration.
In 336 Arius was due to be solemnly received back into the Catholic Church in the presence of the Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius had succeeded in banishing Athanasius for the first time and also had the ear of the Emperor. The reconciliation of Arius was first due to take place at Alexandria but the people would have none of it. They stood by Athanasius, their exiled bishop. So Constantinople was the chosen spot but the night before the "reconciliation" Arius was found dying, in a closet. His bowels had burst from his body and he died in agony. Many regarded this as an Act of God.
The following year Constantine died. The Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and the Western was headed by Constans, a Catholic. In the East, although Athanasius was allowed to return for a while to Alexandria, the Emperor favored the Arians. Many Eastern Bishops met for a false council at Antioch in 341 and drafted an ambiguous semi-Arian Creed. The following year, however, a more genuine council assembled at Sardica (modern Sofia) and re-issued the Nicene Creed as the stamp of Orthodoxy. The Arian bishops withdrew amid loud protests. However, the troubles were by no means at an end.
In the year 356 Emperor Constantius, together with the Arian bishops, finally drove Athanasius out of Alexandria. Pope Liberius was forced to come to the Imperial Palace where the Emperor demanded that he join in the universal "condemnation" of Athanasius. Pope Liberius refused and was exiled to Beroea in Thrace. He eventually gave in to pressure and excommunicated Athanasius.
In 357, a new Arian formula was drawn up stating definitively that the Son is unlike the Father. This, however, was rejected even by "moderate" Arians and led to a further document being drawn up using the term homoiousios ("of like substance"). This was signed by Pope Liberius who added a note to say that he only accepted it in the traditional sense, not the Arian sense.
The lowest point of all was reached in 359 when over four hundred bishops assembled at Rimini where they were physically forced, in some cases, to sign an ambiguous Arian formula. The Eastern bishops met for the same purpose at Seleucia and then delegates from both "councils" met at Constantinople in 360 to finalize their agreement. Pope Liberius would have nothing to do with it. St. Jerome made the famous comment: "The whole world groaned to find itself Arian." However, Constantius died soon after, and the true Catholic bishops were able to reassert themselves. For the next thirty years or so the quarrel continued, but slowly the Arians lost their ascendancy. Besides St. Athanasius, there was now the influence of St. Hilary of Poitiers and the well-known bishop, St. Ambrose.
Apollinaris
Apollinaris was the Bishop of Laodicea. He developed his heretical theories around the year 360. In his efforts to combat Arianism, he sacrificed the oneness of Christ's Person. He fell into the error which is also found today that "personality" is the same as "consciousness." He argued that if we admit an intelligence in Christ other than the divine, we thereby have two personalities. So, effectively, he denies that Christ has a human intelligence at all. The modern Liberal tends to hold the reverse. He might say, "Christ had a human intelligence therefore he could not have a divine one." Apollinaris went on to teach that there was a threefold principle in man—body, soul, and spirit. Christ, he admitted, had a human body but the rational soul was supplied by the Word.2 Apollinaris was attacked for his views by another great figure of the age, St. Basil. In the year 377 Pope Damasus condemned the heresy and deposed Apollinaris.
Nestorius
Nestorius was a priest well known for his ascetic life who was selected as Bishop of Constantinople in 397 AD. He has studied at the theological school at Antioch. This school had always tended to talk of two "spirits" in Christ and for them "Spirit" was virtually the same as "person." Effectively, what Nestorius taught was that Christ was a human person in which the second Person of the Trinity dwelt as in a tabernacle. Christ's personality is viewed as the result of the union of the Divinity and Humanity; in effect, a kind of "moral union" of two distinct persons.3 This intricate thinking might have been left to the realms of pure speculation except that its proponent, Nestorius, was in a position of power and moved on from this stage to attack the veneration paid to Our Blessed Lady. The ordinary faithful had long used the expression "Mother of God" but now Nestorius told them to speak only of "Mother of Christ." The populace appealed to the Emperor and another great figure of the age, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who brought the matter to the notice of the Holy See. The Pope ordered Nestorius to recant within ten days and authorized St. Cyril to depose him in default of a submission. Nestorius refused to submit and spread his errors wider than ever. "If Mary is called Mother of God, she is made a goddess," he claimed. The Pope agreed with the Emperor in having a Council at which it would be clear that his condemnation would be ratified.
The Fathers assembled at Ephesus, the place well known in ancient times as the shrine of the goddess Diana (Artemis) and as the probable home of Our Lady after the Ascension of Christ into heaven. Nestorius was summoned to attend but sent only contemptuous replies. We might compare the behavior of Dr. Küng here, who constantly refused to go to Rome to defend his views. About one hundred and fifty-nine bishops assembled for the first session starting on June 22, 431. The first session ended by stating: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops." A second session started on July 10th when the legates of Pope Celestine arrived. The Pope's letter was read and all the bishops were asked to accept it. The ending of the council is just as famous. The local populace heard the news of Nestorius's condemnation and surged through the streets bearing torches and joyfully proclaiming: "Thou O Mother of God, hast destroyed the heresy." Thus started the custom of candlelight processions in honor of Our Lady which continues to this day.
The Nestorians fled to Persia where the local ruler encouraged them. The advent of Mohammed, however, eventually led to their total eclipse. The true followers of Nestorius are those Protestants and even some who call themselves Catholics, who would deny that God was born of Mary, or that God shed His blood for us on Calvary. For us Catholics, the honor given to Mary is the safeguard for the Adoration of her Son. To acknowledge Mary as Mother of God is to believe truly in God the Son become man.
Eutyches
Eutyches was a monk of Constantinople. He was head of one of the city's largest monasteries. He was well known for his ascetic life and had great influence at court. He was also famous for his attacks on the Nestorians but then he went too far in the opposite direction. While Nestorius denied the unity of the Person of Christ, Eutyches effectively denied the existence of two natures. He seems to suggest some kind of fusion of the Divine and human natures which took place at the Incarnation. Christ thus becomes some kind by hybrid God-man. Eutyches was deposed but appealed to the Emperor, who called for a council to meet once again at Ephesus. However, the bishops that met were all partisans of Eutyches and his henchman, Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, a very unsavory character to whom no crime came amiss if it furthered his immediate ambition and greed for money. Dioscorus presided and refused to acknowledge the authority of the papal envoys. They deposed the patriarch of Constantinople who was a true Catholic and restored Eutyches to his monastery. The Pope at this time was St. Leo the Great and when he heard what had happened he condemned the Council and anulled all its decrees. This Council is now known as the "Latrocinium" or "Robber Council."
The Emperor refused to grant St. Leo a new council but when Marcian became Emperor in 450 he agreed to comply with the Pope's wishes. This council met at Chalcedon in October 451. Chalcedon was a town on the Asiatic side, opposite Constantinople.
Nestorius had allowed Christ to be "of two natures." The correct expression is "in two natures." The Nestorians were claiming "one nature only after the Union." Thus they denied Christ's human nature, making the Passion in any real sense impossible and the example of Christ's human life valueless to us. Eutyches harps right back to the earliest Gnostic heresies in this. At the council an important letter known as "The Tome of St. Leo" was read and approved. Dioscorus was deposed and Eutyches removed from his monastery. A solemn definition was made which stands to this day as the complete statement of Trinitarian belief to back up the Nicene Creed. It is well known that today not only Hans Küng but other so-called "Catholic theologians" are saying that the decrees of Chalcedon need to be revised "in the light of modern history and scholarship."
To end this survey of Trinitarian heresies, I quote from the decree of the Council of Chalcedon: To even consider "revising" such a definition would be unthinkable . . . but in these troubled days, there are not lacking those who would disturb our Faith anew. 1. The Latin passus means "to suffer," hence the Passion of Our Lord. 2. The Word, i.e. God the Son. Thus, not having a human soul, Christ was not truly man as well as truly God.
3. Â Catholic teaching is that Our Lord was one person with two natures—human and divine, and, thus, truly man and truly God.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 4, 2019 16:36:41 GMT
The Angelus - May 1980
Heresy! by Pastor Historicus
Monothelitism & The African Heresies
The Council of Chalcedon did not find complete approval, particularly in the eastern provinces of the Empire. Many of these provinces remained firmly monophysite. In fact, following the Persian invasion of the Middle East all the captured provinces were monophysite. This was around AD 620.
The Emperor Heraclius was, however, able to recapture the lost provinces from the Persians and set about trying to restore religious harmony between Catholics and Monophysites. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, was ready to help. A few years earlier he had devised his own "version" of Trinitarian belief. Sergius won over the Patriarch of Alexandria, a monophysite, to his own views. However, once again, there was a champion of orthodoxy to hand. This was a learned monk of Alexandria named Sophronius. He became Patriarch of Jerusalem. Sergius wrote to the Pope about his own teaching and what was happening. His teaching was that although it was true to talk of Christ being "in two natures," He worked His divine and human works by one Theandric operation (i.e. there is only one will in Christ). The Pope, in his replies to Sergius and Sophronius, showed that he had no real grasp of the theological issues and ordered both sides to remain silent.
The Emperor then issued a exposition of the heresy to be enforced throughout the Empire. This is known as the "Ecthesis" of Heraclius. It states bluntly that there is but one will in Christ. In 649 a new Pope, St. Martin, called a synod and condemned Sergius and the Ecthesis. He declared there are "two natural wills, the Divine and human, and two natural operations, the Divine and human." The new Emperor, Constans, a monothelite, was furious and seized the Pope by force. He later died of his hardships in exile in the Crimea.
Finally, orthodoxy triumphed in the Council of Constantinople in AD 680. Some of the key words are
The African Heresies
We now turn back a few centuries to consider a group of three heresies that were found largely in North Africa. They have one thing in common, that St. Augustine of Hippo was involved in dealing with them.
Donatism
This heresy had its origins in the ending of the persecutions of Catholics at the turn of the Third Century. Donatus was a Bishop in Numidia. The troubles arose because of squabbles between those who had been imprisoned for their faith and those who remained free and were accused of apostasy in the face of the enemy. Among those accused were certain bishops. The Donatists claimed that apostasy meant such a great fall from Grace that they had lost all their spiritual power. They could no longer be a means of Grace—no longer baptize or ordain. Where priests and bishops had been ordained by apostates they lacked valid orders. True Catholic doctrine is that the unworthiness of the minister does NOT affect the validity of his administration of the Sacraments, which operate ex opere operate (literally, "from the work worked").
This heresy dragged on for one hundred years. There was a weird off-shoot known as the "Circumcellions." They were a militant band of fanatics, self-appointed judges of social inequality and rigourists in matters of morals. They roamed around the country with cudgels and ravaged the estates of the wealthy, compelling assent with terror. Sorne demanded to be killed in order "to die for their faith"! However, it was often true Catholics who died at their hands and it was common practice among these vandals to throw out the Blessed Sacrament from a church if they knew that Mass there was said by a true Catholic priest.
In today's world, we have a near parallel with "Catholic" guerillas who make common cause with the Communists and seek to overthrow lawful governments by violence where they consider social inequalities exist. These groups also claim their own martyrs. One was a priest known as "Camillo Torres," who became a guerilla and was later shot.
The classic defense against the Donatists is to be found in the works of St. Augustine (De Baptismo iv 18):
The Manichees
Before his conversion, St. Augustine was for a time a Manichee. The heresy is, in fact, another variety of Gnosticism originating in Persia and very close to Mithraism described earlier. The founder, named Mani, preached his pernicious doctrine around the year AD 240. There is the dual origin of life and two supreme principles, one good and one evil. There is only one way in which Manicheeism differs significantly from Gnosticism. The Manichees were divided into two groups. First there were the elect, who were bound to a severe moral code including prohibitions of certain foods and drinks, and even of marriage. But then there were the "Hearers" who accepted the system and would one day qualify for salvation by passing into the ranks of the Elect but who until then had nothing else to do except hold fast to their resolution to do so. St. Augustine, as a young man, was intellectually satisfied with a system which claimed to "know" everything and appeared as a complete academic scheme, which would, however, allow the moral disorders of his life to continue as a mere "Hearer." The "Hearers" were notorious for their immorality.
Manicheeism was condemned time and time again—by St. Leo the Great, by the 2nd Lateran Council (1139), and the 3rd Lateran Council (1179). In the fourth century the Church in Spain was nearly destroyed, due to the activities of a Manichee known as Priscillian. But the worst outbreak of all occurred in the 13th century and is known as the Albigensian heresy, which we will look at later.
Looking at today's situation we can see the new Manichees or "Hearers" in the Church claiming that there is no real sin at all provided you have a "fundamental option" to please God. Witness those who seek to re-admit divorced and re-married Catholics to the Sacraments, those who condone methods of birth control and all forms of sexual vice. These obnoxious individuals claim that a "stable loving relationship" is all that is needed. We can only hope that they will see the true evil in all this before they go to face their Creator, just as St. Augustine did all those centuries ago.
Pelagius
Pelagius was a monk from Britain who came to Africa in 410, fleeing from Alaric who was about to sack Rome. With him came his friend, Celestius, who sought ordination and was refused. He turned to Ephesus where he found a bishop foolish enough to ordain him. Celestius then returned to Carthage to spread his errors in Africa, while Pelagius moved to Jerusalem. He was opposed tooth and nail by the great Biblical scholar, St. Jerome, and eventually his heresy was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418. Even after this date the heresy continued in the hands of Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, and it was the needs of this moment—the opposition to the heresy, that drew from St. Augustine his great work, The City of God. The Pelagians started by denying original sin. They denied that death and concupiscence arise from Adam's fall. Adam's sin affected his offspring only as a bad example. In no way, they taught, has human nature suffered by Adam's fall. Pelagius went on to say that man is able by his ordinary powers to avoid sin and reach heaven, that the Law is the equal of the Gospel as a guide to heaven, and that man by training his will can live without sin. With this system Baptism is something external, nothing to do with original sin but the stimulus of a moral lesson. The Redemption itself is emptied of its main significance and becomes a wonder out of proportion with its object. In summary man can do everything by himself by training his will. This is a return to pagan stoicism with its harsh pride. Julian, while not quite going to the extremes of Pelagius, taught that man by natural good works could deserve Grace and that once in the state of Grace man does not need gratuitous Grace from God.
The Council of Carthage stated against Pelagius that death in Adam and us is the result of sin, that children need baptism as a result of Original Sin, that Grace is needed not just for the knowledge of God's commandments but also the strength to obey them. Also that without Grace it is impossible to perform good works.
We do not have far to look to see that Pelagianism is still alive and well and spreading its ugly tentacles around today! With many so-called Catholic teachers and preachers, the doctrine of Original Sin has disappeared. Human nature was never weakened because no actual "fall of Adam" took place. With Original Sin going out, the doctrine of the Redemption also falls down. The coming of Christ is often portrayed by these writers as merely the attempt to show men an example of how to live their lives properly. The avoidance of bad habits is reduced to a matter of proper education and the use of an informed conscience. The word "Grace" has fallen out of favor and has been replaced with the ambiguous "love." Furthermore, the whole mission of Christ on earth, the great work of Redemption, is now termed "Good News," another vague term. With the absence of a true Redemption, and no Original Sin, these modern writers reduce Baptism, as Pelagius did, to a ceremonial action, simply an initiation rite into the Church. These writers lay great stress on the idea that "everything will be all right" once people are educated properly to listen to the "good news."
The Iconoclasts
Iconoclasm owes its origin to the ending of the persecutions in the same way as Donatism. The Romans had at one time insisted on the worship of statues of the emperors or idols of the gods. These idols or statues were thus put on the same plane as the "brazen images" in the Book of Exodus. The Jews, when they fell away from the worship of the true God, fell to worshipping idols. So the early iconoclasts claimed that it was wrong to make icons or statues of Our Lord, Our Lady, or the saints. They claimed that this was forbidden in Scripture. In fact, the use of images and icons probably dates from the first century. There may have been a tendency in some places to worship the pictures in themselves, but this is very doubtful. The custom spread after the ending of the persecutions of placing icons and pictures in churches. The use of Holy Pictures was defended by Leontius, Bishop of Neopolis in AD 590. He pointed out that the reverence paid to them is purely relative, the prostrations before them, and the place of honor given to them in the churches are directed to the personage they represent.
The Monophysites and the Manichees opposed the placing of images in churches and it is possible that the Emperor, Leo III, who decreed the removal of religious images in 726 was, in fact, a Monophysite. When the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to obey his decrees he was deposed. The Emperor sent troups to arrest the Pope who also refused to accept the decree. However, the troops were lost in a storm at sea on their way over. The defense of the faith fell to yet another great figure, St. John Damascene, who not only attacked the iconoclasts but also objected strongly to the Emperor meddling in the affairs of the Church.
After Leo died in 741 he was succeeded by Constantine Copronymous (literally "Dung-maker," after an accident at his baptism!) who lived up to his name by the virulence of his persecution of Catholics. He decreed that images were to be torn down and in their places should be set up landscapes and pictures of birds and animals. Most of the resistance came from the monks and many were martyred. It even became a criminal offense to pray to the saints or even to use the word "saint." Finally, at Nicea in 787, some years after the death of Constantine Copronymous, a new Council was held. Speaking of images, icons, and statues the Council decrees state:
This should have been the end of the affair but as we have seen so often, the troubles lingered on. In 813 there was a violent outburst of iconoclasm led by Emperor Leo V. He exiled the Patriarch of Constantinople and the persecution he started was even worse than under Leo III. Monasteries were sacked, the abbots imprisoned and flogged, some were sewn up in sacks and flung into the sea. The next two emperors kept up the heresy but when a new emperor was only yet a baby, his mother, widow of the persecuting Theophilus, reversed his evil ways with the help of yet another saint, Methodius, who became Patriarch of Constantinople and replaced all the Iconoclast bishops.
We do not have to look very far for 20th-century Iconoclasts in the Catholic Church! Many of our buildings have been stripped not only of their statues and holy pictures, but there has also been a ruthless ripping out of altar rails, reredos, and even altars themselves to accommodate the "new spirit" which demands that the entire concentration should be placed upon a "table" set up to replace the Altar. Of course, not every church building has been desecrated in this way but the damage is almost as great as that which took place when the heresy first started.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 5, 2019 15:18:37 GMT
The Angelus - June 1980
HERESY!
By Pastor Historicus Heresies leading up to the Reformation
The Albigensians
THIS HERESY takes its name from the Southern French town of Albi in Languedoc. It is also known as "Catharism" from "Cathari"—the "Pure Ones." As a heresy it is really a re-hash of Manichaeism. The southern provinces of France during the 12th century still contained many people of Moorish descent, dating from the time when the Moors had conquered the area. It was a cultured and prosperous region and one reason why it spread so quickly was that it had what might be termed "economic overtones." As usual, there are supposed to be two gods—one good and one bad. The material element in man is wholly evil. Man is a creation partly of the good God and partly of the Devil and needs salvation. Salvation comes from the emancipation of the soul from the body. This is achieved by receiving the consolamentum, a simply sacramental rite. However, those who took the rite were bound to perpetual continency, almost constant fasting with no meat, eggs, butter, milk, or cheese in the diet. They were not allowed either to take part in lawsuits or to take oaths and had to live a common life with the others who had taken the oath. There was no escape once you had taken the consolamentum and those who wavered were "encouraged" to enter a "complete fast" leading to death—a kind of compulsory suicide.
However, the great thing was that no one had to take the consolamentum at once. It was sufficient, to start with, to accept the doctrine but not the obligations. You then pledged yourself to receive the consolamentum at some time in the future. Meanwhile, those who had taken the oath were to be revered as leaders. Even if you died without taking the oath, any shortcomings would be expiated in a future life, for reincarnation was part of the Albigensian heresy. This meant, in effect, that as with the Manichees, you could act morally according to your own desires.
The system spread widely in Southern France and Northern Italy from the second half of the 12th century onwards. As the "Perfect Ones" had at their disposal a great deal of money, they used it to subsidize industry for the benefit of the simple "believers." In this way the "Perfect Ones" came to control the prosperity of the region. The heresy was at its height about AD 1200. Once again, however, when it seemed likely to sweep all before it, there arose a great saint ready to combat the heretics. This time it was St. Dominic, founder of the order that bears his name. He organized groups to visit affected areas and they would then preach in every village to re-convert the inhabitants back to Catholicism. We must not overlook the fact, too, that politics were involved. The Count of Toulouse, Raymond VI, favored the heretics and a holy war was waged against him for some years. The heresy was officially and solemnly condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215. From that time onwards the Inquisition came into being. While we may well prefer not to dwell on all the methods used to root out heresy employed by the Inquisition it must be borne in mind that religion and politics were very intertwined in those times and that the heretics were often opposed to the lawful government. Also the religious side of the Inquisition did not inflict the notorious punishments; this was left to state authorities.
Some Interesting 12th-Century Figures
The following people did not exactly start major heresies but their influence left an impression on peoples' minds and their ideas lasted long after their deaths.
Peter Abelard
He is best known in history for his tragic love for one of his pupils, Eloise. However, he was a great philosopher in his own way. When he came to apply his philosophy to Catholic theology he fell into several errors. He did, in fact, recant and died in harmony with the Church. Among the errors condemned in 1140 were the views that the Holy Ghost did not have the same power as the Father or the Son; that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world (Pantheism); that we have not contracted any fault by our descent from Adam, merely that we are subject to certain penalties as a result of his action; that man's works do not make a man better or worse; that the power of binding and loosing was given only to the Apostles and not to their successors. Many of these errors will reappear as we progress.
Arnold of Brescia
He was a monk of great austerity who later became, for a period, the effective ruler of Rome. He claimed the Church had no right to own property and that bishops and priests who owned property were guilty of mortal sin and should no longer be obeyed. One should not go to confession to such men; it were better to confess to each other. He claimed that the Emperor should arrange for the election of a fresh Pope, according to his own pleasure.
Peter of Bruys
He was an unfrocked priest who declared that organized religion with its churches and its clergy was a complete mockery. The Mass was mere show, and good works done on behalf of the dead were a waste of time since the good cannot in any way communicate with the dead. His views did not advance very far during his lifetime as he was torn to pieces by an angry mob in the year 1137.
Peter Waldo & the Waldenses
Waldo was a wealthy banker from Lyons who, after reading the story of the rich young man in the Gospel, sold all his possessions and determined to devote his life to preaching poverty, to which he vowed himself. He was rather extreme in his views even at this stage and was forbidden to preach by the local bishop. He appealed to Rome and was told that he could only preach with permission of the local bishop. However, he decided to ignore this ban. He gradually introduced into his teaching ideas picked up from Abelard and Peter of Bruys. The Waldenses allowed women to preach and criticized Masses for the Holy Souls as useless. They moved on to oppose the personal merit of the individual to the sacramental status of priests as the source of their power to bless and consecrate and forgive sins. Sacramental acts were null if the priest was in mortal sin. The one source of power in matters spiritual is to live as the Apostles—in absolute poverty. They went on to say that any layman could in case of necessity, without ordination, say Mass! Thus, they anticipated the views of Dr. Küng in this regard, but I rather doubt if Dr. Küng would say that this right to say Mass was only possible to laymen who wore sandals and lived an apostolic life of poverty!
Abbot Joachim
Joachim was a very saintly man who sought and obtained permission from the Pope to write a new commentary on Holy Scripture. He published only one work in the seventeen years he devoted to study and it is the ideas in the work rather than anything in the teachings of the man himself that give rise to trouble. His Trinitarian teaching was distorted in that he taught that the Divine Essence consisted of distinct realities making the unity of the Trinity no more than a collective unity of a group. His view of Scripture was that the Old Testament was the age of the Father, the New Testament the age of the Son, and the coming age was the age of the Holy Ghost. Joachim was to be the prophet of this age. He had the special gift of being able to give the Bible its final meaning. (In this he foreshadows the modern Biblical scholars who think they now have all the answers that were lacking to past generations.) In the new age faith gives place to charity, obedience to liberty. Joachim would evidently be very happy in the 20th-century Catholic Church where there is a concerted effort to make this come to pass. The Holy Ghost is alleged to inspire even the worst excesses of the charismatic movement. Loyal priests are told that they are ignoring the new ways in which the spirit is leading the Church and that all preaching should stress divine Love rather than Justice. Liberty, even so-called religious liberty, is to be allowed to everyone.
Joachim went on to say that all rites and sacraments are relative and will pass away with each age. The Mass itself will disappear. The Christ Who lived in Palestine is no more than a figure of a new Christ who will soon appear. The visible Church will be absorbed into the invisible and the clergy will lose their reason for existence.
Fourth Lateran Council
All the ideas put forward by the people who have been discussed were comprehensively condemned by this Council, AD 1215. And yet, of course, the views lingered on. One point only I need dwell on here. This Council was called on to defend the Holy Mass from those who either denied it any value or claimed that any lay person could offer Mass. The Council states that at Mass the Body and Blood of Christ are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the appearance of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into Blood by the power of God. No one can bring the sacrament into existence but the priests duly ordained by the power of the Church which Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles and their successors. Marsiglio of Padua
We know very little of the life of Marsiglio but he was active in Italy around AD 1330. He is best known for the views of Church and State which he propounded in a work known as Defensor Pacis. The ideas contained in this book were later used by Wyclif and Hus, and later still by the Reformers of the 16th century. His views on the nature of the State are strange enough. For Marsiglio, the State is a collection of individuals whose only unity comes from the imposition on this multitude of a single will to which all must now conform. Force then is the essential constituent of law. Law is now simply the imposition of the will of the State upon the citizen. When there is no force there is no legal obligation. This is in flat contradiction of St. Thomas Aquinas who teaches that laws must conform to objective standards of justice. As for the authority of the State, this comes according to Marsiglio from the will of the people. "Consultation" of the people must make for future harmony of government and the whole body of people must assent to sanctions that accompany laws.
Marsiglio went on to apply these very same principles to the Church and to the relations between the Church and State. He claimed that the greatest evil of the day was the hold that the clergy had on the Church. The Church, said Marsiglio, was no more than the aggregation of the individuals that composed it and who invoked the name of Christ. They are all equally of the Church and the distinctions between clergy and laity are of no importance. Marsiglio would be quite at home in the 20th century Church, with many Catholics attempting to whittle away the distinction between priest and laity on the grounds that all must be equal among the "People of God"—the "in-phrase" of Vatican II.
Marsiglio was prepared to admit that the power to say Mass and forgive sins and to ordain was a Divine power given only by ordination, but he claimed that the action of the generality of the faithful determined who should be ordained and even what should be taught. General councils, bishops, and the pope himself only had their powers from the people who were the only source of fidelity to Christ's teaching. Marsiglio went on to state that the Church was, in fact, no more than the religious aspect of civil society. Not only may a civil ruler exercise authority in the Church, it is his primary duty. There should be one single authority in the State. The State, too, must control public morality, regulate the lives of the clergy, and control education.
His book appeared in 1324 and was condemned by Papal Bull in 1327. However, it made a great impression, and many of the ideas I have outlined find expression in the Church of today. It had a great influence on Wyclif and Hus, who will be considered next. At the time of the Reformation his ideas about State control of the Church came well and truly to fruition. The other ideas about democracy working through the Church have reappeared more recently in the demand that parishes should, for instance, choose their priests, and the ridiculous levels to which "consultation" is carried out in even trivial matters by bishops in the post-Vatican II Church.
Wyclif
Wyclif appeared for the first time in public life at the age of 40 in 1365 when the English Parliament was in dispute with Rome over the payment of certain dues. When the Holy See demanded large arrears on a tribute made by King John 100 years earlier, the whole country was up in arms and almost broke with Rome altogether. Wyclif was there to propose that the Church in England should be disendowed for the profit of the State. (Henry VIII did this later.) In 1376 he was becoming well known for his outrageous views, and he was reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope. However, a change of monarch in England led to some confusion and it was not until 1382 that his teachings were officially condemned and he was forbidden to teach.
What he taught was really nothing new. From Marsiglio he stated that the Church was subject in all matters to the State. Any ownership of goods by the Church is at the wish of the monarch only. From earlier heretics he taught that sacramental powers vanish if the person is in a state of mortal sin and that time was ripe to consider abandoning the position of Pope altogether. He could not stand religious orders and said they were hindrances to salvation. He attacked the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and stated that Mass had no warrant in Scripture. Any man, he said, can understand Scripture because the Holy Ghost will make its meaning clear as it is read. It is the sole source of religious truth. Wyclif is, in fact, probably best known for his attempts to translate the Bible. However as we can see from this list of his teachings, they contain nothing fresh. One feature of the post-Vatican II Church is that in encouraging people to read and study scripture, there is not enough emphasis placed on the fact that certain passages are difficult and there is a need to read a sound commentary on the text and not "makeup your own mind" about what the text might mean. Hence we find today that many pundits are claiming that the Church must return to the pristine originality of Holy Writ. Tradition in certain circles of post-Vatican II Church counts for as little as it did for Wyclif.
John Hus
Hus was rector of the University of Prague at a time when Czech nationalism was rising to a fresh peak. He was a good speaker and commanded a wide following. He roundly condemned the evil lives led by some of the clergy. After five years of reform he became an extremist, and in 1408 he was excommunicated. He appealed in 1411 from the Pope to a General Council. When a council was called at Constance in 1414 he went there only to be imprisoned. He appeared before the Council and refused to recant his views. He was declared a heretic, handed over for execution to the town authorities and was burned at the stake.
The result was uproar in his homeland and the formation of what amounted to a Hussite army and a set of battles known as the Hussite Wars. Hus is regarded as a martyr by the Czechs—to this day. But what did he teach? Well, it was more or less the same as Wyclif. The clergy must not own goods, that mortal sin deprived priests of their authority and right to preach, and that Holy Communion should be administered under both kinds. His supporters made more of this last point than Hus himself.
Once again the Hussites would be at home in the 20th-century Church on this last point. Many voices are now heard demanding that the "Cup" be administered at the "Eucharistic Meal."
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 6, 2019 16:24:47 GMT
The Angelus - August 1980 Heresy! Protestantism
By Pastor Historicus
THE PROTESTANT heresy initiated by Martin Luther was the most important and far-reaching of all the heresies we have looked at. Its effects have lasted down to the present day, and this in spite of the strange fact that most of the so-called Protestant Churches have long since discarded the main tenet of his faith.
The Reformation can be looked at from many points of view. As a Catholic I tend to look upon it as a kind of punishment on the Catholic Church of the day which had become too worldly and too rich. There had been a succession of popes whose character left much to be desired. At the same time the "Renaissance" had begun and with it a growth of humanism. The invention of printing meant that books could be easily produced and new ideas quickly spread around the world. It was an exciting time to be alive.
The starting point of the Reformation is usually given as 31 October 1517 on which date the professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg pinned up 95 theses for debate on the topic of indulgences at the door of the castle church in that town. By 1517 Martin Luther had already been professor of theology for five years. He was an Augustinian Friar and was also very much taken up with the affairs of his friary. His own learning had been remarkably scanty for a person about to become a professor of theology. His studies were infected with the philosophical ideas of William of Ockham whose idea of God was of a remote and somewhat vengeful figure. By 1517 Martin Luther had rejected intellectual thought in favor of a warped mysticism and a "mystical use" of Holy Scripture. The result was a strange mixture in which the Cross has no place at all and the only basis of faith is a consolation of one's heart that "I am called" and "I am really saved." As yet, however, these ideas were not formally put forward.
With regard to the initial attack on indulgences, Luther had a strong point. Monks would travel across Europe collecting money on the principle that gifts of money for a specified work of piety would be sufficient to gain a remission of time otherwise to be spent in purgatory. This abuse of indulgences was later condemned at the Council of Trent.
This is perhaps not the place to give a detailed account of Luther's life afterwards; but one or two points must be made. During the next three years he put together his system and published certain works which we shall look at in a moment. The Pope attempted to reconcile him at first but, then in 1520, he was excommunicated. At this point many of the civil rulers of the German States gave him their support and when the ruler declared himself a Protestant, the Catholics were driven out. Later it became a definitely established principle that a citizen of the country had to follow the religion of its ruler. This, of course, led to many terrible persecutions and deaths.
Anyway, to return to the actual teachings. The basic principle of genuine Lutheranism is that Original Sin is a radical corruption of human nature. Man is wholly and forever corrupted in his essence and therefore incapable of any really good works. Yet man can be saved as the result of the cloak of the infinite merits of Christ being thrown over man's wretchedness to cover his hopeless state. Man's own sinfulness—an effect of Original Sin working in him—can have no effect on him once he is clad in this cloak. Christ has accepted him and he is justified.
The logical result of all this is that works of penance are useless, that prayer of petition is a waste of time, and there is no point in the sacramental system at all except as a kind of holy gesture affirming belief in God as Saviour. No room here logically for priests, bishops or pope. However not all of these logical conclusions were in fact drawn by Luther, though later on every one has appeared. But how in this system does a man know if he IS accepted and justified? Very simple, it is all a matter of "possession of faith," but for Luther this meant just a firm confident belief that God has predestined one. Sin does not matter. Luther coined a phrase: "Sin well, but believe better." In 1520 Luther wrote three books putting together the practical details of his system. In his Address to the Catholic Nobility he attacked the office of pope and offered to the German nobility a way of avoiding payment of further dues to Rome and severing all connection with the See of Peter. There were to be no more annates (yearly payments), excommunications, or pilgrimages or indulgences. In future it is the Prince who presides over all believers. Monks are to be released from their monasteries and all priests released from their vows to marry and enabled to live like laymen. All believers are priests (as Küng believes today).
In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther taught that down through the ages Christian doctrine had been falsified from its early purely scriptural base. He said that there are only three sacraments (later reduced by his followers to two): Baptism, Penance and the Eucharist. The latter is in no way a sacrifice and the Mass, according to Luther—"devilish wickedness." All the sacraments depend for their effect only on the faith of the recipient. It seems to me quite remarkable that all these points are now being taken up by some of those who call themselves Catholic today.
In The Liberty of the Christian Man he elaborates his theory of faith and works. When we perform what are normally described as good works these are purely natural acts out of love for our neighbor and in no way supernatural or grace earning. So piety and morality are separated. Also gone (with Luther) are Aristotle's ethics and Thomistic metaphysics. Our sole source for theology is to be Holy Scripture. The State is considered as God's guidance for ruling mankind and to protect the good (the justified) from the unbelieving wicked.
At this point we might consider a strange movement which tried to join forces with Luther for a time: the "Anabaptists." They were the remnants of the Albigensians and Lollards. Their chief tenet was that child baptism was of no use and that baptism was only for adults. The Church is basically spiritual and not institutional and no human organizations have any validity, the State being "in the realm of darkness." Ideally all things should be held in common and life led with a strict moral code but as with the Albigensians, and all the descendants of the original Gnostics, there was a remarkable liberty allowed for some! The Anabaptists claimed the right to prophesy freely and to interpret the Bible personally.
Now many of these tenets have since been incorporated into various Protestant sects but Luther would have nothing to do with them, for in spite of his views on Scripture Luther claimed that only his interpretation should be followed, and the Anabaptists' view of the State was totally at variance with that of Luther.
Before passing on to look at the work of Calvin, we would do well to consider the fact that the basic Luther system rests entirely on the premise of justification (salvation) by faith only. Yet you will look hard before you find even one Protestant sect which professes that thesis today. Modern Protestantism in its many forms consists of the "trappings" of the Lutheran system without its main premise. It is hardly surprising that there are so many Protestant sects around today, each slightly different from the next, when none of them have anything to cling to as a central focal point except their own personal interpretation of Scripture. The whole thrust of the modern post-conciliar unity (ecumenical) movement is however seen as bending over backwards to "aim at unity with our Protestant friends." They, however, have been in a doctrinal and moral slough for centuries. What a disaster that the post-conciliar Church appears to be going the same way.
CALVIN was a layman with a smattering of theology. He broke from the Catholic Church in 1533 and formulated his theories over the next few years, eventually settling down in 1541 in Geneva where he was in almost sole control for many years.
His version of Luther's teaching is very austere indeed. It harps back to the life to be led by the "elect" or "chosen" in the various Gnostic heresies which we have already examined. Calvin, with Luther, believed that faith alone justifies but he put a lot more stress on predestination than Luther.
In his system he stresses the holiness of God's law as interpreted by himself. To this end he taught that all earthly pleasure was sinful (or almost so!). He also took great pains to stress that anything which cannot be found in Scripture must be eliminated. So out went crucifixes and images and all decorations in churches, together with vestments and lights. In this he was, of course, a 16th-century iconoclast. Not only was the Mass rejected as with Luther but the Communion rite has no kind of Presence of Christ in any objective sense at all.
When Calvin came to control Geneva, life became grim for its citizens. Playing cards, dice, light songs and dancing were forbidden. Taverns were closed and a new kind of eating house established where a man could read his Bible in peace. All the citizens were to attend five sermons a week. Fashion of dress and shoes, as well as ladies hair styles, were regulated. Anyone who denied that Scripture was inspired was tortured and beheaded. A special form of inquisition was set up whereby every household was visited twice a year to make sure that no "superstitious practices" were being followed and that everyone was attending the sermons. Entries were made on a special ledge for each family—"pious," "lukewarm" or "corrupt." To help this process along, spying on your neighbor was encouraged, as today in Russia.
Calvinistic settlements were made in many countries where they were persecuted as much as Catholics were at first. However, a basically Calvinistic-style of religion can still be found in some parts of Switzerland, in Holland and of course in Scotland where one of Calvin's followers, John Knox, had a great success in turning that country from Catholicism to Calvinism while Mary Queen of Scots was yet an infant. But just like Lutheranism, the original message of Calvinism was distorted and many sects loosely called "evangelical" now flourish.
Series to be continued
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2019 15:27:48 GMT
The Angelus - December 1980
Heresy! Jansenism & Quietism
by Pastor Historicus
Only a short time after the Council of Trent had heralded the Counter-Reformation and firmly stated Catholic doctrine against Lutheran and Calvinist errors, the Church was disturbed by yet another major heresy, Jansenism, which left deep roots behind it. Both Jansenism and Quietism deal with the relationship in the soul between nature and grace. Jansenism is often called "Catholic Calvinism" and indeed there is some truth in this.
Jansenism as a heresy has to be looked at in its historical context. It is set in the France of the Grand Siècle, the era of the Sun King, Louis XIV. The name of the heresy comes from Cornelius Jansen, sometime Archbishop of Ypres in Belgium and author of a book known as the Augustinus. The author set out to expound what he considered to be the true doctrine of free will and grace as found in the teachings of St. Augustine which, he alleged, had been concealed from the faithful until now. He died in 1638 and the work was published posthumously in 1640. The author submitted the doctrine to the judgment of the Holy See.
The reason for the spread of the teachings, which we shall consider in a moment, was that Jansen's close friend and former fellow student, the Abbot of St. Cyran, had passed on the erroneous teaching to the religious community at Port Royal just outside Paris which was presided over by Mother Angelique Arnoud. At a time when most religious communities were rather lax, the community at Port Royal was renowned for its strictness and many notable French lay men and women came there for spiritual direction. In this way, St. Cyran was able to spread Jansenism to a far larger audience than would normally have been the case. We must remember too that although the Augustinus was only published in 1640, the ideas contained in it had been spread around by St. Cyran for many years before that date. When the book was published it was a best seller in France, in spite of efforts by the Jesuits to have publication banned. The Dutch Calvinists were also much taken by the teaching they found.
According to Jansen, in man's fallen state he was no longer free but a slave of sin, forever dragged along by earthly delights, and all that he did led him to the abyss of corruption. But, said Jansen, God in His goodness offered humanity a chance to snatch itself from the abyss. Through the merits of Christ He gave man efficacious grace which ennobled the human will. Those who possessed it were indeed free and delivered from the slavery of sin. But nothing could be done for those who did not possess it; they were without hope. Grace, said Jansen, was not given to all humanity. Many are called but few are chosen. Only a few exceptional souls were capable of exercising free will in regard to salvation and as for the rest, they remained in massa damnata as a result of original sin. So the Jansenists recognized free will in many, but limited it to those few who received grace.
This is what might be called doctrinal Jansenism and the reader will see how close this is to Calvinism. However when these strange teachings were injected into the Port Royal community and thence to France, they gave way to a series of moral directives applicable to the daily life of Catholics. What we often call Jansenism today is the ultra-strict moral code introduced at Port Royal in the first instance. But as with Calvinist behavior it is hard to see, if everyone is predestined, why anyone should practice austerity in daily life. The reason for this taking up of austerity may lie in the fact that the convent was already austere before the influence of St. Cyran came to bear on it. St. Cyran turned a genuine Catholic austerity into something quite frightful and arrogant. The great writer Bossuet said, Jansenism too became mixed up in French politics. There were large numbers of influential people in France who hated Rome and the influence of the Pope, and in particular hated the Jesuits as papal agents. This party eventually gave rise to a kind of minor heresy we call Gallicanism and in an earlier article I showed how a variety of this heresy arrived in America and gave birth to Americanism. The spread of the heresy was also much helped by the fact that Cardinal Richelieu arrested and imprisoned St. Cyran and this made him into something of a "martyr."
One might have wondered why the heresy spread at all, and why the book was not condemned at once. The fact remains however that the heresy as such was not condemned until 1653 by Pope Innocent X. This condemnation followed the publication of a work by Antoine Arnauld entitled On Frequent Communion. In this work the author claimed to be "restoring" the true doctrine on reception of the Sacrament. Some passages are very well written, but then come some very unusual statements. We are told that Holy Communion is a sublime reward to be obtained only at the cost of strict mortification and in any case to be received very infrequently. Those only should communicate who felt the definite call of Divine Grace. In fact, not to communicate became the sign of profound humility and piety. Confessors should impose on penitents long periods of waiting and severe penances. How discouraging all this is to poor sinners like ourselves!
A lively debate followed and eventually, in 1649, the Doctor of Theology at the University of the Sorbonne extracted five statements which summed up Jansenism and sent them for the judgment of the Sorbonne doctors. After Arnauld had tried to block this move, the propositions were sent to Rome and Innocent X set up a commission. Eventually on the 31st of May Innocent pronounced the formal condemnation of the five propositions. Much of the credit for this condemnation can be given to a great saint, St. Vincent de Paul, who saw clearly the great harm that Jansenism was doing in France. Once again, a great heresy had inspired a great saint to attack it, and defend orthodox belief. The main points condemned are: "Some commandments of God are impossible to just men;" "In the state of fallen nature, no resistance is ever made to interior grace;" "For merit and demerit man does not need freedom from necessity but only freedom from compulsion;" "The human will cannot resist grace;" "Christ did not die for ALL men."
However, this did not end the heresy and Arnauld attempted to counter by saying the propositions were not in fact contained in the Augustinus. He claimed that the Pope cannot infallibly declare a heresy to be contained in any particular book. This false distinction is still used by today's modern heretics, just as today the heretics claim to be loyal members of the Church—just very much misunderstood. Eventually after more condemnations, the heresy died down, but a group of bishops remained in schism in Holland and later on allied themselves with the "Old Catholics" who rejected papal infallibility in 1870. However the idea that Communion should only be received infrequently took a long time to die and was only thoroughly squashed by Pope St. Pius X. Another factor which led to the downfall of Jansenism was the introduction of devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Divine Love, which was promulgated by the Jesuits and opposed by the Jansenists.
Quietism
JANSENISM can be regarded as a heresy concerning Christian asceticism. Quietism is a heresy concerning mysticism. It is again sometimes difficult to discern the difference between true Christian mysticism and the pernicious perversion that Quietism really involved. There have always been Quietists in Church history. St. Jerome had condemned the ideas very early on. In the year A.D. 1000 there was a group known as the Hesychasts at Byzantium who remained still and silent with their eyes fixed on their navels in order to arrive at the contemplation of the uncreated light of God! Besides this odd behavior they also considered that while in this state the soul is altogether incapable of sin. Many later Quietist groups lived lives of great depravity based on the idea that for them sin was impossible.
The origin of the heresy that we call Quietism lies with one Miguel de Molinos born in Saragossa in 1628 and by the age of thirty a popular confessor in Valencia. He came to Rome in 1664 and met with great success. Cardinals and a future Pope (Innocent XI) sought his advice on matters mystical. His triumph in the Eternal City lasted about twelve years. His troubles started when he published in 1675 a book entitled Spiritual Guide. The book was a best seller and for a time was all the vogue in Rome. And yet it is unqualified heresy. The spirituality is based on absolute passivity and contemplation in complete spiritual tranquility. The soul is to annihilate itself in God. The soul must make no acts at all. Devotion itself is harmful if it is addressed to the visible, like Our Blessed Lady or the Saints. Molinos went further; he accepted that sin existed but taught that our very vices were acceptable to God provided the soul humbles itself! In fact he taught it was harmful to resist temptations as this was God permitting the demons to use violence against the will of perfect souls. The reader may think that it was extraordinary that such nonsense was not condemned out of hand, but the writer had a high reputation in Rome. The real evil of the system became apparent when it was discovered that many well known ladies in Rome were giving anything but a spiritual interpretation to the teachings of Molinos! Indeed rumors were rife about the relations of the holy man himself and his lady penitents! He was arrested in 1685. He submitted at once to the judgment of the Holy See and agreed to renounce his errors. Sixty-five errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent XI Although some people called for his death by burning, he was merely kept in prison where he lived a life of great mortification until his death in 1696. We have already seen in earlier articles how some of the Gnostic sects permitted grave immorality to exist alongside an apparent spirituality. Heresy!
A rather similar development can be seen in the modern Church where some preachers do not mention sin and the devil at all, seek to excuse all moral failings, reduce sin to racism and fascism, allow all to receive Communion regularly with no recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, and denounce as reactionary anyone who admits that sin—particularly sexual sin—exists in the world today. Although the background beliefs may differ, these false preachers are the spiritual heirs of the Quietists.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2019 19:27:15 GMT
The Angelus - January 1981
HERESY! Modernism by
Pastor Historicus
With this article, our series on the heresies of history, which has stretched over many months, comes to an end. We trust our readers have enjoyed and profited from the survey and have been led to see, as our author points out, that all the principal errors of the principal heresies can be found somewhere today!Neither Jansenism nor Quietism were as clear-cut as the earlier heresies because those who held the heretical beliefs still considered they were Catholics, or refused to admit they were covered by papal condemnations. The same is also true of Modernism, but the leading exponents were in fact called on to retract and, if they did not do so, they were formally and officially excommunicated like Luther and the heretics of old. In recent years with the upsurge of Neo-Modernism we find that formal excommunications are not used and the faithful become more and more confused while so-called theologians are allowed to teach what they want.
The general aim of all Modernists was to attempt to reconcile faith with the findings of modern science. They wished to adapt dogmas to the "modern" mind and produce an apologetic which would appeal to men unused to the ways of thinking of the old scholastics. It was necessary, they said, to restate and reinterpret Christianity for each generation. In the process they came to empty dogma of any meaning by reducing faith to meaningless symbols.
The earlier background can be found in the eighteenth-century philosphers rejecting Thomism and producing theories which were incapable of grasping realities or even stating if reality really existed!
Following such ideas, the Modernists talked more of the "experience" of God. Their theories inevitably led to immanence, pantheism, and eventually to agnosticism.
Each Modernist varied the system somewhat, but certain points can be found in common. These were succinctly put by Pope St. Pius X when he condemned this heresy in the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of 1907, and the accompanying list of sixty-five erroneous and heretical points from Modernist works. The movement as such dates from around 1875, and Loisy was probably the leading exponent in the early years. He died a complete agnostic as late as 1940. The basic points of Modernism found in nearly every writer are as follows.
The experience of God cannot be put adequately into ordinary language. Yet it is necessary to express religious truths in some way for each generation. However, any given expression of dogma is inadequate to express the inexpressible. These expressions which can and must alter in each generation are merely symbols of an unknown reality . . . they are a few men's personal reaction to the truth they are trying to find, but are of course unable to find totally on earth.
At the same time Scripture was regarded also as an expression only of the faith of the particular writers who gave expression to what they personally thought of the events they had witnessed. Modernists also claimed that Scripture had to be judged by the same criteria and canons as any other ancient writing and had to be compared with the findings of archaeologists who were discovering contemporary documents. Such a theory allows no room at all for any idea whatever of Divine Inspiration. All Modernists would have one believe that faith was a kind of religious faculty or sense and not an act of the intellect moved by the will, and enabled by Divine Grace. They also in general denied the validity of the proofs for God's existence from effect to cause, or that Christ instituted a teaching Church with seven Sacraments. They denied that the Church's Magisterium could determine the genuine sense of dogmatic statements or of Scripture. Not only dogmatic truths but the very constitution of the Church itself was subject to continual evolution (change).
The reader will notice already that much of this nonsense has crept back into the post-Vatican II Church. In fact, the Modernist ideas simply lay dormant between 1907 and the recent Council. Many Modernists at the time made interior reservations when they took the Anti-Modernist Oath. Those who were condemned like Loisy and Tyrell continued to write until they died.
I shall look briefly at some of the major figures of the heresy. The majority of Modernists flourished in Italy and France, while England produced two major figures in Tyrell and Baron von Hugel (Austrian but naturalized) and America had Fr. John Sullivan whom I considered in an earlier article. Loisy had built up a considerable reputation as a Scripture scholar in the 1880's, but in effect had lost his faith by 1885. He remained in name a Catholic until around 1903. His most famous work was published in 1901, L' Evangile et l'Eglise—Gospel and Church. This was not designed for popular consumption but mainly for the academic world. Outwardly it was an attack on the Liberal-Protestant theologian Harnack, but every jibe made at Harnack was also a blade thrust at the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. It was an essay in Christology which gave his own interpretation of Christ's work and character. The Gospel stories are reduced to the interpretation of Christ's work made after His death by His followers. That is, based on the faith of the Apostles rather than on facts. The divinity of Christ is nowhere mentioned. The work is very similar indeed to the recent book by Dr. Schillebeeckx, An Experiment in Christology.
Tyrell was a Jesuit priest in England. He drifted rather slowly out of the Order and found refuge with a rich English lady, Maud Petre, who nursed him in his final illness. He suffered from Bright's disease which affects the mind and body and, when he died in 1909, he was refused burial in consecrated ground because he refused to make a clear retraction of his errors. His position is put best in a work published after his death entitled Christianity at the Crossroads. Many Anglicans of a Liberal turn of mind are at roughly the same position as that of Tyrell. He held an evolutionary view of Christianity and believed roughly that the Church had undergone a series of evolutions. The first took place just after the start of Christianity when paganism swallowed Christianity and was transformed by it. Then, later on, Catholicism swallowed Aristotelianism and was transformed by it, and now science was swallowing Christianity and was to be transformed by it. One could speculate on the influence of this type of thinking on Teilhard de Chardin who was a young student at the time. In the following passage the reader will see just how similar was Tyrell's thinking on the nature of the Church to the Neo-Modernists of today.
No sooner was the Light of the world kindled than it was put under a bushel. The Pearl of great price fell into the dustheap of Catholicism, not without the wise permission of Providence, desirous to preserve it until the day when Germany should rediscover it and separate it from its useful but deplorable accretions. Thus between Christ and early Catholicism there is not a bridge but a chasm . . . it fell into the chasm and remained there, stunned for nineteen centuries. (Christianity at the Crossroads)
Finally, I shall mention Baron von Hugel. He was never condemned formally but encouraged Modernists up to 1910 with a series of letters. He has a lasting reputation as a writer on mystical theology and would have done better to limit himself to such writings. He seems, however, to have abandoned his Modernist works after 1910. His deep personal faith saw him through the crisis, but the illogicality of his position before 1910 is well shown by this invented dialogue between von Hugel and a friend, written by Tyrell (his life-long friend) just before he died:
So, I conclude this series on the heresies. Not every heresy has been covered, but I hope the reader will see that nearly everything that the Neo-Modernists of today produce can be traced back to early heresies and often right back to pure (if this be the word) Gnosticism.
END OF SERIES
|
|