Talk:List of heresies in the Catholic Church

Suggestions for additions

A few others to ponder :

• Modernism (Roman Catholicism), which was declared to be the sum of all heresies by Pope Pius X in Pascendi. It's also seems that post-modernism falls somewhere between those lines.

• Conciliarism, which claims that the council (and laity) is always above the ordinary (and extraordinary) magisterium.

• Americanism, a form of ecclesial populism which doesn't allow bishops to speak publicly about faith and morals.

• Theopaschism, in many ways similar to Patripassianism.

• Impanation, a eucharistic heresy.

• Consubstantiation, a rival doctrine to transsubstatiation, accepted by Lutherans but rejected as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.

• The Johannites, a sect of Gnostics who reject Jesus Christ, and instead posit that the true savior was in fact John the Baptist. See also Mandeism

• Hyper-Calvinism, an extreme form of calvinism which denies that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal.

• Liberation theology, a mixture of theopaschism and conciliarism. See also Christian communism and Christian socialism.

• Fideism, a religious philosophy which neglects the relationship between rationality and faith.

• Latitudinarianism, a tendency to view matters of doctrine, liturgical practice, and ecclesiastical organization as of little or secondary importance.

• Caesarism, Caesaropapism and Erastianism, doctrines which stress the supremacy of the state over the Church.

• Christian nationalism, White nationalism and Anglo-Israelism, doctrines and ideologies that confuse Church, Ethnicity and State, in a similar way to Phyletism.

• Josephinism is the term used to describe the domestic policies of Joseph II of Austria, attempting to impose a liberal ideology on the Church.

• Febronianism, an 18th century German movement directed towards the nationalizing of Catholicism, the restriction of the power of the papacy in favor of that of the episcopate, and the reunion of the dissident churches with Catholic Christendom.

• Nominalism, a metaphysical view that is to a great extent Un-Trinitarian.

• Christian libertarianism, a synthesis of Christian beliefs with libertarian political philosophy ; problematic since the Gospel says to render unto Caesar.

• Christian atheism, which is related to Arianism, Materialism, Evolutionism, Rationalism, Metaphysical naturalism, Vitalism and Nominalism, per Richard Dawkins et al.

• Clericalism and/or Clerical fascism, an application of church-based theory or thought to secular issues.

• Queer theology and Feminist theology, branches that split from Liberation theology. See also Christian egalitarianism.

• Freemasonry, in many ways the Freemasons are similar to the Manicheans, in that they are political and dualistic, with a common attachment to both deism and luciferianism. Also see Secularism and Illuminism.

• Positive Christianity, a term adopted by Nazi leaders to refer to a model of Christianity consistent with Nazism.

• Reincarnation, a view held by various dissidents, as opposed to the Resurrection of bodies.

• Essence-Energies distinction, this is a teaching within the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is nevertheless considered a heresy by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.

• Sedevacantism, the position held by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics who claim that the Papal See has been vacant since the death of Pius XII.

• Origenism, a variety of allegedly heretical views held by followers of the philosophy of Origen.

• Feeneyism is a derogatory term for the Roman Catholic theology associated with Leonard Feeney (1897-1978).

• Deconstruction-and-religion, problematic since Jesus is himself a living Temple, and not a constucted temple like the Temple of Jerusalem.

• It's unclear, but in the Historiography of early Islam, there were claims that Islam was some kind of Christian heresy (cf John Damascene).

ADM (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Petrobrusians and Henricians. Oh, and Beguines. Amalricians too? And the Brethren of the Free Spirit? Even if their derived or influenced forms of heretical movements, in a listing they should appear at least as basis for extending research in the topic. Even if appearing in a category as "alleged", "minor" or something like it. The purpose of a listing of heresies that doesn't help to reach articles about heresies is somewhat questionable. Don't remove items based on some criteria, explain the criteria and create a sub-listing. Ed.capistrano (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Liberation theology

Great... thanks. I was thinking about whether Liberation theology was a heresy or not. Here's the problem that I'm having with this entire article. I think everyone can agree that Arianism was a heresy. It was declared to be such and so that's that. Some of the other theologies/ideologies that you mention may be heresies from your point of view or my point of view but how can we know who exactly considers it to be a heresy? By this I mean, has the Pope explicitly labeled liberation theology to be a heresy or has he just attacked it without labeling it a heresy. Is a Pope's opinion enough? I mean Arianism was anathematized by an ecumenical council. That's the Good Housekeeping Seal of heresy in any one's book. What do we do with heresies that haven't been declared as such by a council?

I have other problems with this article that I need help on. See below.

The references are mainly the Magisterium and Church history. The Holy Scriptures were for the most part written by members of the Church, so they can never really contravene it. A Council which condemns a heresy is part of the collective decisions of the Church. From this point of view, private judgement (i.e. individualism) is not sufficient to determine heresy, since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The sensus fidelium or (sense of faith) of the laity is often a good indicator. Even ecclesial communities that are separate from the teaching authority can sometimes share common doctrine which dates back from when they were united. Also, every Bishop has a magisterium of his own, to the extent that this magisterium is taught in collegiality with the broad Church, the petrine office having a special degree of authority in teaching matters. ADM (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but that was of little help. For the purposes of this article, how can we say that X is unequivocally a heresy? What is the rule that we establish for saying that X is a heresy? I would say that it has to be branded as such by either a council or a Pope or a leading proponent has to be sanctioned as a heretic (in the old days, the sanction was execution; these days, it's not so drastic). Remember that this is Wikipedia and we have to conform to WP:RS and WP:V.

If we read what the Wikipedia article on Liberation theology says, it is unclear to me whether or not liberation theology is a heresy. (Actually, based on the Wikipedia article, I'm leaning towards saying that it is not a heresy per se but certain elements, certain strands and certain tendencies could lead some individuals into heresy.) So should we include it in this article or not? I would say not.

From the Wikipedia article on Liberation theology

Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church. At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. ... it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth).

The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has long been known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

If we adopt the rule that I have proposed, then I am not sure that the items on your list qualify under this rule. For that matter, some of the entries that are currently in the article might not qualify.

--Richard (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, my view on Liberation theology is based on the Chalcedonian Creed : if Jesus is truly God and truly man, how can he be a kind of communist rebel ? A rebel against God, against Himself ? It is really a question of christology, on what the Christ really is, and very often christology is at the heart of heresy-hunting, on telling the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. ADM (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could go on for quite a while debating your view of liberation theology vs. mine but you are missing my point. What you think doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Neither does it matter what I think. When I say that I am leaning against counting it as a heresy, I say that not based on my personal evaluation of its orthodoxy or heterodoxy. I say it because it appears from the Wikipedia article that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI actually called it a heresy although they have opposed some elements of it. As the Wikipedia article says "Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church." and "The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has long been known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Cardinal Ratzinger did praise the theology's intellectual underpinnings that reject violence, and, instead, "[stress] the responsibility which Christians necessarily bear for the poor and oppressed". Now on the other side, people have been excommunicated for teaching it and teaching it is banned. That starts to smell like a heresy to me.

So... is liberation theology a heresy? I'd say "close but not quite". But I'm open to being educated. Just don't make an argument based on OR. Show me the sources.

--Richard (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are to call Liberation Theology a heresy, we need to find a WP:RS that calls it that. And, in this particular context, we really need an authoritative source that speaks on behalf of the Catholic Church (which is why I am leery of using the pronouncement of just one bishop and would prefer a papal or conciliar pronouncement). --Richard (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found sources that point to Cardinal Ratzinger calling it a singular heresy. Also, the CELAM has bishops appointed by John Paul II that share these views [1] ADM (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great... That does it for me. Thanx. --Richard (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Organizational scheme for this article

So far, I have stuck pretty closely to the original organizational scheme that was in place when this list was in the Christian heresy article. I think it is inadequate because the number of entries in some sections is pretty large. Also, the Gnostic and Christological sections overlap big time. Can anybody suggest ways to improve on this? --Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Restorationism as a heresy

As I mentioned to ADM above, there's a problem because we don't use the word heresy as much these days and, with very few ecumenical councils, it's hard to draw a line and say "This is officially considered a heresy". The most obvious cases of this problem are Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. Pretty obvious to me that these are considered heretical by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations. But, are there reliables sources that say this? --Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends, if Churches have made official statements on the matter for example. I think however that 99 % of Church bodies are against Restorationism, mainly because it is closely related to Arianism, which was condemned at the Council of Nicea. ADM (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that just about all Christian denominations oppose Restorationism. However, where I need help is in finding the official pronouncements. --Richard (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heresies vs. heretics

Arius was a heretic. Arianism is a heresy. Same with Montanus and Montanism. Hus/Hussites. These are clearly notable heresies.

But how about Henry of Lausanne and the "Henricians"? Arnold of Brescia and the "Arnoldists"? Where do we draw the line in considering a heresy to be worth including in this list?

Why do we not have Savonarola and Giordano Bruno in the list? Was Galileo a heretic?

Is the scope of this article just notable heresies or does it include notable heretics? I worry that, if we include all notable heretics, this article will explode in size.

I propose to remove Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia.

--Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Medium is the Message (cf Marshall McLuhan). Leonardo Boff is responsible for Liberation theology, but we don't call it Boffism. It really depends on what is said, and what the Church actually teaches, so it can be both, on one hand with a heresy named after a person (e.g. Arius), and on the other a heresy which is closer to a philosophical system (e.g. modernism). ADM (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. I'm not quite so concerned in what a heresy is called. I'm saying that some heresies live and die based on the life of one heretic. Consider Girolamo Savonarola. He had a short-lived following in Florence but there was no heresy called Savonarolism. Should we add Savonarola to this article or take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia? I say we should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia but I'd like to see if others agree. --Richard (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Savonarola has been accused of clericalism and authoritarianism [2] : he started out as a liberal advocate for the poor, but ended up as a kind of theocratic dictator. Cardinal Trujillo, who was a high-ranking leader in the Church, was comparing Liberation theology to Savonarola, and also to Communist dictatorships. ADM (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... we have crossed over from one issue (should Savonarola be included in this article) to another (is Liberation Theology a heresy?). And there remain the questions: should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia? I would be inclined to should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia and put Girolamo Savonarola in. --Richard (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They are certainly part of same category of heresy, so I would only put one of them up (say the Fraticelli), and say it is the poverty heresy. The others belong to the same category of thought. And of course, the refutation to this heresy is to say that Body of Christ is not always naked, that the people fo God are not always naked and poor like Adam and Eve, that currently we can't technically all be crucified at the same time, nor can we go back to the garden of Eden. ADM (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic heresies vs. Christian heresies

The title of this article is List of Christian heresies. User:ADM has suggested a list of additions, some of which are heresies (e.g. Liberation Theology and Americanism) from the POV of the Catholic Church. The pre-Chalcedon heresies are pretty much considered heresies by all of Christianity. Protestantism is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church but obviously not by Protestants.

How do we inform the reader which of the entries in this article are considered heresies by only some churches?

--Richard (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Protestants don't exactly have a Magisterium, a least not on paper, so it's very difficult for them to determine what is heresy and what is not. The only thing they have is concerted pluralism and formal adherence to the five solas, and whatever they interpret Jesus as saying though their own private judgement. We see how problematic this is in the Anglican communion, which is bitterly divided over feminist theology and queer theology.

I would focus first on special sections on the Catholic Church, then on the Orthodox Church, then on some of the more centralized Protestant groups like the Southern Baptist Convention. These groups have made many statements and decisions on orthodoxy, while others have not. That includes about 75 % of all Christians, which is pretty clear-cut, since these principal church bodies agree on a great deal of issues.

Another thing is that heresy is different from schism, in that while most schismatics are heretical, some are not ; on the other hand, some heretics will always refuse schism, regardless of their obvious dissenting views. ADM (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And so how is sedevacantism a heresy? Why is it not simply a schism? --Richard (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a schism per se, but see the official 1993 Catechism and you'll see why it is a kind of heresy to say that Peter is no longer Pope. The Catechism is a very good source for telling what a heresy is. ADM (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we need a citation to a reliable source that calls it a heresy or else we are susceptible to a charge of original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

The reason that we can't use the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that is a primary source so unless it explicitly mentions a heresy and labels it as such, we need a secondary source that interprets the Catechism to label something a heresy. --Richard (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Protestantism

I hesitated to add the section on the Reformation and include Protestantism as a heresy although it's clear that the Catholics and perhaps the Orthodox consider it to be a heresy.

Part of the hesitation is the concern that labelling Protestantism as a heresy would be considered POV by Protestants. Sorry, this isn't meant as a POV attack. It's simply true that the Catholics and Orthodox consider it a heresy. Their opinion, not mine.

Of course, Protestantism is one of the most widespread, widely accepted heresies. Even the Catholic Church doesn't really use "heresy" or "heretic" to refer to Protestantism these days.

Now my other concern with this section is the inclusion of Hyper-calvinism. Why just this one entry? In truth, all forms of Protestantism are heresies. Why not add Calvinism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptist, Methodist? Well, that might be overkill as the section would grow long as we tried to add every kind of Protestantism under the sun (and there are many).

I would like to know what other editors think about these questions.

--Richard (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Protestant heresies concern divine grace and original sin. I would create a special section on grace within the article and re-read the statements made at the Council of Trent. If you look at the actual declarations and definitions of Trent, you get a good idea of what we are talking about when we speak of heresies within Protestantism. Another good source on this is Exsurge Domine, which condemns a large number of heretical propositions made by Luther and his followers. ADM (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also things considered heresies by other protestants as well: such as Pentecostalism and Prosperity theology. Those who hold to Believer's baptism consider Infant baptism a heresy and vice versa. Xandar 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless we want to add a section documenting what heresies the Protestants see in the Catholic Church, this section should be removed. It is completely inappropriate to use this page as a platform for Catholic sectarianism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach82 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Something to monitor

Certain modern Christians (mostly Baptists, see Landmark Baptist - for one) support a fanciful narritave that connects a series of ancient and mideveal people and sects in an to attempt to claim that any number of modern Christian sects have ancient histories that stretch back to the time of the apostles. It runs something along the lines of St Paul to Novationists to Donatists to Paulicianists to Claudius of Turin to Petrobucians to Henricians to Cathars to Waldenses to Wycliff and Huss to Anabaptists to Modern Baptists. That skips quite a bit, but you get the picture. It was pushed hard in the 19th century and it is pure fiction. It does not even stand up to even the slightest examination and the only pieces of "evidence" that ever backed it up whotsoever were found to be Victorian era forgeries. I cleared most of this nonsense out of Wikipedia quietly two years ago, but some editors, mostly IPs try to slip this back into the ecyclopedia from time to time. The Waldensian article is one of the few I monitor, as there are legit modern Waldensians and they have made it clear they do not support this belief about their sect's origin. I worry less about the Cathars, Paulicianists, etc. as they are confined to the history books. Please, any help to keep an eye out for this nonsense would be a good thing. -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Column

Perhaps an additional column (or section within the fourth column could indicate WHo considers it heretical? eg Mainstream Nicean Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists etc. Xandar 10:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Heresy?

Now, which of these listed denominations is the one and only true christianity to which we Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics and Orthodox are heretics? Shouldn't the title of the article have "sects" instead of "heresies"? After all: God knows whome of us are right in what way. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And why is Heliocentrism and Antinomianism classified as "Christian" "heresies"?

Antinomianism is a term, not a religious movement,

Heliocentrism says nothing about religion at all, and the "movement" was a small bundle of ideas that spread over the borders of denominations, it was not associated to any specific religious doctrine.

Mysteriously pondering. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another oddity: why is Calvinism on the same level as Protestantism? It should be on the same level as Lutheranism under Protestantism, since it is generally considered a form of Protestantism. I'm more and more mystified, is the article new? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article new?

Rursus asks if this article is new. Yes, it is "new/old". I created it in January of this year by extracting text from Christian heresy which had been there for probably a couple of years before. This is the first revision of the article. I expanded the article by adding descriptions to many of the heresies and converting the list into a table format to better organize the expanded descriptions.

I am the primary author although much of the text has been cut-and-pasted from the articles on each heresy and other people have helped.

I'm open to adding, modifying or deleting information. Some of the points in the section titled "Heresy?" above are worth discussing. I don't have time right now but I'll try to get back to it soon.

--Richard (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV citation

I have cited the Protestantism section for lacking a NPOV. As I said in the edit summary, Protestantism is not a mere fringe movement in Christianity, and this page should not be used to peddle the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. More suitable for this sort of thing would be a short section discussing disagreements between current Christian sects and how this often leads to accusations of heresy. The list could include only historical or fringe movements in the history of Christianity. Merely adding a section citing the Roman Catholic Church would be silly. Zach82 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)