What exactly is heresy? - And which denominations do you see as heretic?

What exactly is heresy? - And which Christian denominations do you see as heretic?

Your answers would interest me

 

It would seem to me that the description of heresey in the Latin Catholic Church's Codex Iuris Canonici canon 751 gives a succint definition, which I would accept. I do not know if any Anglican church has formally defined it.

 

"Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith"

One problem with that definition is: who gets to decide what is "divine and Catholic faith"? Those who wrote this definition presume that the Roman Magisterium gets to decide.

I think an addendum to the definition is needed, such as: "...divine and Catholic faith" which has been handed down to us by God via His written word, the Bible. Thus would the word of God, not any Magisterium, be the arbiter of divine Truth.

 

Exactly!
Else everybody can accuse everybode else of "heresy".

The word "heresy" is often used in this forum, I noticed.
Why?

 

Heretics are usually people who disagree with bigots.
Bigots are dismissive of any who disagree with them.

Heretic: A person whose views are at variance with those of the majority of a religious community.
So whether you, as an individual, are a heretic or not depends on which religious group you happen to be with at the time. It's a label others put on you to preserve their perceived group identity.

It works with groups too.

Heretic: A group whose views are at variance with those of the majority of other religious groups.
.

 

Excluding the title of the resurrected thread on TEC from 2014, I've only ever seen it used in this forum to refer to old Early Church heresies. It's used there because it's the most appropriate descriptor. Perhaps the forum used the term more liberally in 2014.

 

Same here.
For me the words sounds a bit historical.
That's why I was surprised to see it used in a modern context.

 

That seems a very good definition to me!

 

But then, Tiffy has (at least one time the past that I know of) described himself as the Anglican Forum's "resident heretic."

 

That's because of the company I keep. And my heresy was, my contention that the only God there is, is not male.
.

 

That reminds me of this dialogue:

Priest, asking an astronaut after his return from space: "Did you meet God there?"
Astronaut: "Yes. And she is black."

 

And Jewish. He'd read "The Shack", perhaps?

 

No, I did not.
What is it about?

 

If you read my post I was talking about heresey and not heresy.

I was really focused on the first part of the definition. I suppose one could replace Catholic with Christian.

I suppose who decides what it is will depend on your denomination. I belong to the Church of England and as I understand it the House of Bishops of the General Synod determines matters on doctrine.

 

I do not think as others have said that heresy is an old term or an outdated concept. It is still possible to commit heresy.

Deny the Holy Trinity; say that Jesus Christ was a mere mortal man and not God; deny the existence of Hell. I would say doing any of those would be heretical.

It is probably unfashionable to talk about heresy just as you are very unlikely to hear your priest reminding you from the pulpit about sin and eternal damnation. We are no longer to know our souls can be in mortal peril. We are simply to feel all warm and fuzzy about ourselves and everyone else.

 

Any teaching that adds a requirement of works or deeds to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only is also a heresy.

There are many so-called 'churches' that add such a requirement. The Mormons teach that one must believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet, must be a member of their denomination, and must perform works in order to reach the 'Celestial Kingdom' of the Father. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that one must be a member of their denomination, witness diligently and strive hard to become one of the 144,000 who will be preserved at the end. The Romans teach that if one is not a member of their denomination and a recipient of the Roman Sacraments, as well as adding one's merits to God's initial justifying grace, it is hardly possible to be saved. The Christian Scientists teach that one must exercise mind over matter and work out one's own problems in order to overcome sickness and death.

 

I was raised a JW, and was a devout Witness until my conversion to Christianity many years ago, and that is not exactly what they believe. They have two hopes, an earthly one and a heavenly one. The 144,000 are the ones who are chosen by God, anointed as they say, and are the only ones who go to Heaven when they die or when Christ returns at the Last Day. The rest of the Witnesses who are not of the 144,000 are to live on a reformed paradise earth for all eternity. Recently, their leaders have been pushing a belief that baptism is necessary to salvation, primarily, in my opinion, because baptism makes one a member of the JW's and once one is a member, called a Publisher, they are stuck in a controlling organization that is very costly, emotionally, to leave.
But that was just a quick correction so no random JW that may stumble upon this would be angered at not correctly representing them.

 

I think such a strict bound of faith is a bit dangerous. Might I add one - "Anglicans teach that one must be baptised into the faith in order to receive grace". We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot there .

Of course I also agree all those churches are heretical.

 

About this.