What Is The Worst Heresy?

[Nathan]

I voted for Arianism: accepting that Jesus was sent from God, but denying His divinity.

Ring any bells?

[N/A Gone]

I said atheism. Not believing there is a God Closes off the need to seek out God. Dialoguing with an atheist, a true atheist, is on a different level than somsone who acknowledged a divine truth in some form.

If someone is a victiam of a heresy (protestants in our age being born into heresy) there is still a chance they can come to grace in the truths available to them. They are not denied any grace; just not given the fullness of truth.


[quote name='FullTruth' post='1174684' date='Jan 24 2007, 09:51 AM']
Can we put the trinity up there. I consider that the worst Heresy.
YHWH doesn't suffer from multiple personalities.
Wow, a lot of people voted for Arianism and Modalism. A whole zero votes. I guess it isn't such a great Heresy after all. At least in the minds of people.
No divine trinity in my world. Only the Oneness of YHWH!
[/quote]

Sir, so do you think there are 3 Gods, or do you deny that Christ is divine? What is your view here?

The early athanasian creed states:

[quote]"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." [/quote]

The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:


There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).

Ever read Origen? Justin Martyr? How about Anslem DeProcessione, or Augustine's work on the trinity? I can give you a copy of these if you desire sir

[traichuoi]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1175708' date='Jan 25 2007, 04:51 AM']
What I find really sad is that most people here choose following the wrong Religious Theology as being worse than not believing in God.

It's better to deny God than to not believe a Religion? Wow!
[/quote]


I don't think that's the case.

In fact, the person who rejects God, knows God better than the person who is lukewarm in his search for Truth and is lukewarm in living by it...the rejecting person has at least made a decision.

Besides, this discussion has nothing to do with denying God versus religion, as you say. Religion binds us to God, so in man's attempt to bind himself, if there is teaching which disconnects him from Truth, then that is a serious matter which is not to be taken lightly.

Edited January 25, 2007 by traichuoi

[Akalyte]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1175052' date='Jan 24 2007, 05:36 PM']
Modernism totally is the worst heresy.
[/quote]

Yes because modernism basically says the Church needs to "catch up with the times". Of course we all know what that means now. The sex abuse scandals, only 20% of catholics actually go to church, 88% of catholics believe in using contraception. Many if not most catholics dont even believe in the real presence of Christ anymore. We cant even defend our faith anymore without dissenters and modernists telling us to "becareful". Modernists need to know that they are the very reason for all the ereverance and "mass confusion" in the church today because their laxity opens doors for the evil one. Just something ive noticed.

[Guest JeffCR07]

There have been a lot of votes for modernism, so I would like to explain why I did [i]not[/i] vote for it, and why I think atheism is the worst of all heresies.

First, it is clear that modernism is the most prevelant and, perhaps, dangerous heresy of our time. It is the heresy which is stealing away the greatest number of souls from the Church and from salvation. However, I think it is often easy for us to see threats which are immediately present disproportionately when compared to those which are not so present.

Moreover, as Pope St. Pius X said, "modernism is the synthesis of all heresies." However, unlike others who have used this quote in favor of making modernism the worst of all heresies, I see the quote as evidence that it ought not to be considered as such. As a synthesis of heresies, it does not make many substantial and original attacks on the faith that cannot be found in other heresies, and so while it may be the most dangerous at the present time, I do not think it is the worst.

In my opinion, the worst is [i]atheism[/i]. Some have said "at least atheists 'know' God and make a choice." This however, seems to be an illegitimate response precisely because they are making the worst choice possible. The atheist is the least likely to be converted precisely because he is the most opposed to any type of faith at all. Every other heresy denies some aspect of the Truth, but atheism denies [i]God[/i], who is Truth itself. Atheism is the radical extreme of all heresy, because there is no way to get God more wrong then atheism does. Modalists and Arians deny the Trinity? Atheists deny the Godhead. Modernists deny Tradition and the Church? Atheists deny Him on whom such things rest. Albigensians and Cathars deny the world? Atheists deny its Creator.

Simply evaluating what is objectively the worst, I can see no other answer than atheism. Pride is the root of all sin, and in a very real sense, Pride is a kind of moral atheism, for in wanting to place himself above God, Satan refused to acknowledge God for what [i]He Is[/i]

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Proud2BCatholic139]

I beleive if you deny the Holy Spirit after being recieved into the church at Confirmation is the gravest sin you can commit. Sinning against the Holy Spirit, as I read, that sin can not be forgiven.

[cmotherofpirl]

Mosts atheists I know refuse to believe in God, but perversely are mad at Him cause He doesn't exist.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Proud2BCatholic139' post='1176069' date='Jan 25 2007, 04:09 PM']
I beleive if you deny the Holy Spirit after being recieved into the church at Confirmation is the gravest sin you can commit. Sinning against the Holy Spirit, as I read, that sin can not be forgiven.
[/quote]

Your definition of sin against the Holy Ghost is incorrect.

[quote name='Douay-Rheims: St. Matthew Ch. 12; Vs. 31-35']31 Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known. 34 O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

31 [b]"The blasphemy of the Spirit"... The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church.
[/b]
32 "Nor in the world to come"... From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place. [/quote]

[Akalyte]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1176070' date='Jan 25 2007, 05:10 PM']
Mosts atheists I know refuse to believe in God, but perversely are mad at Him cause He doesn't exist.
[/quote]


LOL hahahaha

[son_of_angels]

I'm not sure that Modernism, whatever it is, can actually be classified as a specific heresy per se. It is easy to accuse a certain person of modernism, even though they ascribe to all the doctrines of the Church, just because they are choosing to use a form of expression highly questionable in the 19th century. Hence, to be accused of modernism is not necessarily equivalent to being accused of a dangerous heresy.

A similar thing might even be applied to Atheism and Arianism. Christians were once accused of the former, and, although such a thing is difficult to formulate, Jesus Christ WAS, in some sense, obedient to his Heavenly Father. It would be easy for this to be taken in reference to his divinity and call someone Arian, simply because he/she is focusing on the sonship of Christ, and thereby ascribing to some of the ideals of Arianism. On the other hand, at times even the Pope was lenient to the Arians, as a study of history might demonstrate.

Out of the list I chose "Protestantism" because, while some of the others simply took good wills and confused them doctrinally, Protestantism yields to the notion of "self-will" where the Church, the body of Christ, is undermined by the sovereignty of individuality. This is incompatible with the new society which Christ has redeemed to himself. The dangers of such a heresy are such that, even when a person maintains a good intent, he is foiled in that purpose by an obstinate worship of the ego, and thereby turns mental interpretations of biblical passages and physical religious experiences into idols which are no better than the Greek gods.

And O for the pity of such souls!

[BurkeFan]

Everyone always forgets about monothelitism / monoenergism.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='traichuoi' post='1174778' date='Jan 24 2007, 01:40 PM']
Way to go on being an "effective" sharer of Truth. In case you didn't catch it, I was being rather sarcastic.

In your attempt to "explain" the faith (which was done without understanding or compassion) you have put judgment on a soul who you have yet to understand why they reject the dogma of the Trinity. Try to dialogue and ask why they believe in such a way and you might be more successful in your attempt to share Truth.
What is your understanding of the Trinity?
[/quote]
I understand the trinity as this.

YHWH is not a trinity of persons, but a trinity of action, thought and love.

YHWH shows his love as the father because he adopts all those who he calls.

YHWH shows his thoughts as the son, showing humanity how to live a submissive life to him.

YHWH shows his strength as the Holy Ghost, working in our world to renew humans by breathing his spirit into their flesh, re-establishing our union with him once again.

So I believe in a trinity, but not a trinity of persons.

Modalism has it's holes though, as does Trinitarism and Arianism.

One good example of a hole for Trinitarism is this.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20

How can the Christ live in Paul, except that the Holy Ghost live in Paul, and the Holy Ghost be the Christ? Does not that make the Holy Ghost and the Christ the same?

One could say, that he is living a crucified life, he emulates Christ of course. But the scripture says Paul isn't emulating, but Christ was living in him.

From a Modalists perspective, we have YHWH living in Paul, making Paul a new creature.

Here is a hole for both Trinitarians and Arains. The translation of Spirit in Hebrew and Greek say breath and wind, not person. So if the Holy Ghost is not a person, but the breath of YHWH, that puts a hole in their beliefs.

That is why YHWH breathed on us and made us a living soul. His spirit is an action in our world, not a person.

A hole for Modalism would be this -

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Matthew 27:46.

Another good proof of Modalism in the 1,000 year rule of the Christ.

If 1st Samuel says that having any King on the throne of Israel that in't YHWH is a rejection of YHWH as the king of Israel, then when Yeshua comes and reigns, a Modalist can say, from their perspective, YHWH finally gets his desire, to be a King over all of Israel and the world.

Though I wouldn't dismiss the idea of three persons, because there are scriptures that suggest that as well, as there is scriptures that Arians will use to say that either side is wrong as well, because of the submissiveness of Yeshua to YHWH, making Yeshua under YHWH.

A modalist would say, but Yeshua is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, so if there is two different beings how can Yeshua be above the father. A modalist has no problem with this scripture because a Modalist says, Yeshua, which means YHWH our saving cry, or simply put YHWH our salvation shows that Yeshua is a revealed name of YHWH. Therefor, Yeshua is not above the father because he is the father, because YHWH manifested himself in our world, but did not say so, because the YHWH wanted us to learn humility. The creator of the entire universe came to us, and then wouldn't say he was the creator, but allows other to do so.

In a world with braggarts and show boats, such a lesson should be very welcomed. The creator made himself of no report to allow others to say, the creator was here. YHWH was here. And YHWH has become our salvation.

Now there is another Translation for Yeshua, The Lord our salvation. I would have one question though? Is not the translation of YHWH mean The Lord? So was this one more step taken to translate or not?

So there are a whole bunch of holes in all of our doctrines, and that makes no doctrine perfect.

All doctrines will finally be revealed unto us when Christ comes back.

Edited January 27, 2007 by FullTruth

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Proud2BCatholic139' post='1176069' date='Jan 25 2007, 06:09 PM']
I beleive if you deny the Holy Spirit after being recieved into the church at Confirmation is the gravest sin you can commit. Sinning against the Holy Spirit, as I read, that sin can not be forgiven.
[/quote]
Let me actually give you a life saving rebuke.

Sinning against the Holy Ghost is not denying having it.

Sinning against the Holy Ghost is recieving it, and after that, turning back to Satan.

I would like to show two scriptures that show this very clearly.



But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. Acts 5:1-10.

Yeshua said, you will choose YHWH or Mammon.

So after you believe, and you choose Mammon, materialism, therefore Satan again, and sin against a man of YHWH by committing sin for your own gain, that is a sin against the Holy Ghost.

Ananias and his wife choose materalism, and lied about it to the Apostles. They made Satan the authority over them again, and they died because of it, making it an unforgivable sin, where there is no chance for repentance.

[FullTruth]

Doh, why did it post twice.

Edited January 27, 2007 by FullTruth

[RezaMikhaeil]

I think that you've got to realize that each of these are "interconnected" in several methods. Such as Penecostalism [protestanism] is just a knock-off of Montanism [Tertullian's seperating factor], that One-ness Penecostalism [Protestantism] is a knock off of the Pauline Heresy that was suppressed and denounced at Nicea [first council], that some of the protestant doctrines of not baptising children [babies], claiming that they havn't chosen Jesus Christ and don't have the knowledge of him, so they aren't "truely saved" is a know-off of gnosticism's "hidden knowledge" theory, that one has to have a "secrete knowledge or understanding of God" in order to be saved.

It's almost impossible to pick which one is "more heretical", because history just repeats itself, but I'd go with Protestantism because of it's interconnection to past heresies, thou I wouldn't go as far as saying that Protestants [all] are heretics because most are simply confused and genuinely love Jesus Christ, genuinely want to serve him and genuinely want to belong to his true church but are simply confused. St. John Chrysostom made it very clear that we shouldn't condemn those that are confused by referring to them as "heretics" but should just condemn those ideologies as "heresies". [paraphrased]

Reza

I think that you've got to realize that each of these are "interconnected" in several methods. Such as Penecostalism [protestanism] is just a knock-off of Montanism [Tertullian's seperating factor], that One-ness Penecostalism [Protestantism] is a knock off of the Pauline Heresy that was suppressed and denounced at Nicea [first council], that some of the protestant doctrines of not baptising children [babies], claiming that they havn't chosen Jesus Christ and don't have the knowledge of him, so they aren't "truely saved" is a know-off of gnosticism's "hidden knowledge" theory, that one has to have a "secrete knowledge or understanding of God" in order to be saved.

It's almost impossible to pick which one is "more heretical", because history just repeats itself, but I'd go with Protestantism because of it's interconnection to past heresies, thou I wouldn't go as far as saying that Protestants [all] are heretics because most are simply confused and genuinely love Jesus Christ, genuinely want to serve him and genuinely want to belong to his true church but are simply confused. St. John Chrysostom made it very clear that we shouldn't condemn those that are confused by referring to them as "heretics" but should just condemn those ideologies as "heresies". [paraphrased]

Reza

[prose]

gnoticism.

[SJRod55]

Modernism has my vote

[Paddington]

"men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted"

I don't like the sound of that "seldom." I mean, if it means that the conversion can not result in final salvation.

Can somebody please elaborate?