www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholicism & Islam: worshipping the same "God"?

Robert,

The working definition for heresy that the Catholic Church uses is the post baptismal denial of some truth essential for salvation. While it is certainly true that someone can hold a heretical position who has never been Catholic (for instance, the generally accepted Protestant position that the Eucharist is symbolic only). Yet, if the one holing that belief has been raised to believe it, then there can be no personal heresy.

I recall discussing this with a good friend of mine, a Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) priest. His position, which he claimed was the position of his Church, was that a heretical position, regardless of how it was obtained, automatically rendered the holder of the position a heretic.

Clearly, the two Churches differ on this point.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Perhaps the positions you state (Catholic vs. ROCOR) are not as incompatible as they seem on their faces.

Here's what I mean: the Latin Church distinguishes between material and formal heresy. Formal heresy is the post-baptismal denial of a truth necessary to salvation, and moral guilt follows from such a position. Material heresy is the denial of a truth necessary to salvation in which the denial is born of personal or cultural circumstance (e.g. you were raised a Lutheran). Moral guilt does not follow from material heresy.

HOWEVER, if one who is a material heretic (someone is going to get upset at that phrase) seeks communion with the Church, then said person is going to have to assent to orthodox belief. If the person does not assent, they (theoretically, but in the Latin Church, who knows) cannot be baptized or otherwise recieved into the Church. If the person at first assents, then denies, that person then is a formal heretic. In the ideal case, then, heretics either don't get in the gate, or are sanctioned after they have come into the gate.

Maybe the formal/material heresy distinction provides a nexus for reconciling the Catholic and ROCOR ideas about heresy...

--NDHoosier

<<I have a problem with your statement that heresy can exist ONLY within Christianity. True Christianity contains zero heresy. >>

Following your line of reasoning, true Christianity contains zero sinners, yet which of us who posts to this board is NOT a sinner? (Lest anyone thing I'm exalting my own moral state, I will assure you that my surname is neither "ha Mosiach" nor "Theotokos".)

This is the definition of "heresy" used by theologians and in every seminary class I've attended. Arius was a heretic; he did not cease to be a Christian, though excommunicated. Monophysitism as defined and condemned by the Ecumenical Councils is a heresy. No one would deny that anyone holding this doctrine as defined is a Christian, however.

Even the most rigid pre V2 Ultramontane Tridentine will admit that Orthodox and Protestants, though heretics, are still Christians.

Non-christian religion are simply that: non-Christian religions. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al are not Christians, therefore they cannot be considered heretics. Though perhaps some heresy might eventually become a separate and distinct non-Christian religion. St. John of Damascus, who lived during the early period of Islam, simply considered it a heretical and abberant form of Christianity, which it might have been at that time.

Moonism might have started out as a heresy based on prelest--all the signs are there--but presently it's a non-Christian religion with a Christian veneer.

Sick relatives do not cease to be part of the family by virtue of their illness. Would you be so foolish as to say, "John has cancer, therefore he cannot possibly be a TRUE member of the family! Cancer just doesn't exist in our family."

A heretic is an ailing Christian, and as such deserves our loving concern and prayers. He does not cease to be a Christian because of his spiritual illness, though he may not be in visible spiritual communion with the Church through the mysteries.

+ Rt. Rev. Basil, DD

You asked me:

<<If Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or adherents of any other religion are not simply heretics what do you call them? >>

I call them Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. They are not adherents of any kind of Christianity whatsoever (orthodox, non-orthodox, abberrant, or otherwise), and hence are not heretics.

If a Hindu were to come to me and say that his sect of Hinduism considers Ghandi to be an avatar, this would have absolutely no spiritual meaning for Christianity. If a Christian were to come to me and say that Ghandi is the new incarnation of the Logos and fourth Person of the Trinity (Christian equivalent), THIS would be a heresy.

To give another poor parallel, psittachosis (parrot fever) afflicts parrots and their close relatives and human beings. It does not affect other birds (to my knowledge) and does not affect cats. (I'm using parrots, birds, and cats in my poor metaphor because these are animals I'm fond of.)

By the same token, heresy can be found only in Christianity. (This is not to say that ideas similar to Christian heresies can't be found in non-Christian religions, or that non-Christian and pagan ideas have never given birth to Christian heresies.)

+Basil

You asked me:

<<If Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or adherents of any other religion are not simply heretics what do you call them? >>

I call them Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. They are not adherents of any kind of Christianity whatsoever (orthodox, non-orthodox, abberrant, or otherwise), and hence are not heretics.

If a Hindu were to come to me and say that his sect of Hinduism considers Ghandi to be an avatar, this would have absolutely no spiritual meaning for Christianity. If a Christian were to come to me and say that Ghandi is the new incarnation of the Logos and fourth Person of the Trinity (Christian equivalent), THIS would be a heresy.

To give another poor parallel, psittachosis (parrot fever) afflicts parrots and their close relatives and human beings. It does not affect other birds (to my knowledge) and does not affect cats. (I'm using parrots, birds, and cats in my poor metaphor because these are animals I'm fond of.)

By the same token, heresy can be found only in Christianity. (This is not to say that ideas similar to Christian heresies can't be found in non-Christian religions, or that non-Christian and pagan ideas have never given birth to Christian heresies.)

+Basil

I've heard Orthodox theologians use the distinction between "formal" and "material" heretics.

A material heretic simply may not know any better.

Let's be honest--some of the most pious souls might ll be material heretics. It seems to be closely associated with "zeal not according to knowledge." And doubtless most of us, including me, may have some bits of material heresy we need to have purged from our minds and hearts.

Basil,
Here is the definition of heresy as I understand it from the Orthodox Study Bible.

"Following one's choice or opinion instead of divine truth preserved by the Church, so as to cause division among Christians. Heresy is a system of thoughts which contradicts true doctrine. It is false teaching, which all true Christians must reject (Matt. 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1)."

Islam & Muslims are not exempt from this definition. Even Uniatism is heresy. I know most of my friends in these forums reject it despite their acceptance of the Roman communion as is. Hindus and Buddahists may be exempt. Even a number of lapsed Orthodox can be considered heretics for their refusal to obey the authority of the Bishops or Church teachings. We Orthodox are not immune from the application of heresy. As the old saying goes, "We know where the Church is but not where it is not."

Islam is 100% heresy despite its borrowing of the Judao-Christian Traditions. The denial of Christ as God Incarnate is enough for me to know that Islam is the greatest threat to mankind's salvation in Christ. Can Muslims be saved? I leave that to God and pray for their salvation. I believe they can be saved but only according to God's mercy through Christ. I do not have any right to say they are going to hell. I am not God. Muslims are adherents of a false Christianity mixed with Arab tribalism, paganistic rituals, and much Jewish elements. Islam is an evil "fraternal twin" of Christianity. The Quran I have written by Yusif Ali claims in it that they are the true Christians. I have a deceived and misguided Orthodox relative in the Middle East who believes that Islam is the purest Christianity. Unbelievable but true!
You really need to study Islamic history to know what they have done to Christianity in the Middle East. Middle Eastern Christians are tolerated but discriminated against. No big secret to Middle Easterns but it falls on deaf ears to Westerners and even amongst sincere Muslims.

Heresy can be found in false Christianities and false religions as well as false philosphical intellectualism. True Christianity bears truth and the path to salvation. It does not generate heresies. I believe your thoughtful approach is quite limited in your understanding. Any opposition to already revealed Christian truths is heretical. Islam has a system of thoughts that opposes Orthodoxy. There is no way around this. Relativism is the greatest danger, greatest heresy of all times. The Bahai religion is a distortion and prime example of relativism and heresy. The FreeMasonary movement is another lie.

I would like to quote for you from 2 Peters 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive HERESIES, even DENYING the LORD who brought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of the truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with DECEPTIVE WORDS; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber."

How much of what you said in your posts are your opinions? Many dogmas of Catholicism fall under heresy and I pray for a return to Orthodoxy. Many relativists in these forums try to justify the existence of Roman dogmas and claim compatability with Orthodoxy. Ain't gonna happen. Not in my lifetime or in the next life to come. I do not oppose communion with anyone. We have to agree to the Unity of the Faith in the Body of Christ.

<<"Following one's choice or opinion instead of divine truth preserved by the Church, so as to cause division among Christians. Heresy is a system of thoughts which contradicts true doctrine. It is false teaching, which all true Christians must reject (Matt. 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1).">>

As useful a tool as the Orthodox Study Bible is, it is not the last word in Orthodox dogmatics, nor is it a technical theological reference.

Indeed, there are many Orthodox of great learning and holiness who find the notes incomplete, misleading, or even inaccurate, and don't consider it to be a trustworthy recourse. (Which is an entirely different argument--one that I don't intend to get drawn into here.)

In a philosophical or theological discussion, the same word might well have different meanings to different participants, and we all will rely on those sources we find more useful.

The definition I am using of the word "heresy" is that used by those more knolwedgable than I.

From a Jewish standpoint, Christianity is a heresy, as the latter arose from the former. But from a Christian standpoint, Judaism cannot be considered a heresy at all, as it was never part of Christianity.

I am not unaware of the rise of Islam. I referred to its roots in Christianity earlier. But while it might have begun as a heretical form of Christianity, it is now an entirely separate and distinct religion.

Non-Christian religions are simply that: non-Christian religions. And and such they are false, but some might be less false than others. A parallel may be drawn: Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, Canada, and Cuba are independent nations that are not the United States, but some bear a strongler resemblance to us than others.

Obviously a monotheistic religion will be closer to Christianity than a polytheistic one. And a non-Christian religion with what it considers sacred books, such as Hinduism, would resemble Christianity (in that regard) more than mere animism.

+Basil

Bless, Reverend Bishop!

You have, in fact, outlined "heresy" as the Fathers of the universal Church have always understood it.

There is also, would you not agree, a different tenor in the New Testament with respect to pagan religions than among the Greek Fathers?

St Paul calls the pagan gods "demons," while the Fathers, coming from pagan traditions themselves, said the gods were personifications of virtues etc.

I also have a problem with the perspective that seems to know, at any given time, who is or who is not a heretic.

Truth is always mediated and our human frailty often fails in grasping it.

My main problem with what passes as "Orthodoxy" is not Orthodoxy itself. It is the idea that once one is Orthodox, they are in the truth while everyone else is not etc.

I find that kind of thinking spiritually stultifying and unChristian.

I thank you for presenting a balanced and scholarly view of the subject.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Basil,
I believe the Orthodox Study Bible to be a great recourse. It doesn't matter to me whether you or others do not accept it. Hence, your "heresy". LOL

Many words can mean a thousand different meanings. My point is that I am consistent in what I have said earlier according to the understanding of the word "heresy". Many Jews reject Christianity and that is their heresy. Many Jews may not know a thing about Christianity and are not, in a sense, heretical. As for Islam, its inherent teaching and understanding on Christ is heretical now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amin.

Alex,
An adherent of the Orthodox Faith, not by mere name alone, is Orthodox. They are in the truth. This does not imply perfection. As for everyone else we pray they unite themselves to Orthodoxy. No one's place to judge others salvation even if they do not subscribe to Orthodoxy.

Dear Robert,

O.K., but what you say about the Orthodox is also what an adherent of any other religion can say about himself or herself. There is no religion anywhere that does not consider itself to be the "true faith." That's all I'm saying.

As for the Orthodox Study Bible, it has not been received with the same enthusiasm in all Orthodox circles.

Those who translated it were converts from Evangelical Protestantism and, truth be told, there are aspects of that in their biblical interpretation. It is an excellent translation nevertheless.

"Heresy" can be objective and you are right there. But to be truly a heretic, one would have had to hold the faith and then consciously move away from it later.

From the Christian point of view, other faiths are wrong, imperfect or whatever, even though they can and do contain many elements of truth and grace.

The "all or none" of some Orthodox thinkers isn't wrong, it's just intellectually insufficient for some of us.

Alex

Excursus on the Orthodox Study Bible:

Someone said:

<<As for the Orthodox Study Bible, it has not been received with the same enthusiasm in all Orthodox circles.
Those who translated it were converts from Evangelical Protestantism and, truth be told, there are aspects of that in their biblical interpretation. It is an excellent translation nevertheless.>>

The NKJV, while translated by Protestants--I know of no Orthodox who was involved in it--is the only modern English version based on the TR--the official Orthodox text.

The NOTES, for the most part, were prepared by the former members of Campus Crusade and such--the late AEOM, which has been disolved.

Admittedly, not all Orthodox received it with applause and kisses. I do think it's very good, but I'm also aware of its limitations. It is certainly NOT presenting itself as a cyclopedic dictionary of technical theological terms, nor as an enchriridion of Orthdox dogmatics.

However, as I've said to the "Orthodox fundamentalists" who have totally condemned it: When you or your jurisdiction publish something better, I'll be pleased to use it.

Let me try this analogy, and it's the last I'll say on the subject.

For most known values of 2, 2 + 2 = 4.

The formal heretic would say 2 + 2 = 5.

The material heretic (who doesn't know better) would say that 2 + 2 = 22.

The adherent of a non-christian religion would say that 2 + 2 = aardvark, or iron pyrite, or apple tree, or anything but any kind of number.

The agnostic would say that we cannot know for sure what 2 + 2 would equal.

And the atheist would say that neither numbers nor arithmetical processes exist at all.

Basil and Alex,
You boys need to know that the Orthodox Bible is not only the works of Protestant converts. If you would only turn to the introduction most of the Orthodox that have contributed to this exciting Book are Orthodox cradles(i.e. Greeks, Antiochians, Ukranians, Serbians and Russians). There is not much problems with the NKJV. What have the other "Orthodox" done to match this feat? Or what are their contributions besides their open mouths? In the next two or three years we will have completed the Old Testament in alignment with the New Testament. What about you Byzantine Catholics, have you anything in comparison to the Orthodox Study Bible?

As for you Basil, what in the notes do you find incomplete, misleading, or even inaccurate? NKJV is a good tanslation rendering into the English language.

These are my definitions of formal and material heretics:

Formal heretics are those people who willingly teach contrary to the Church and her faith.

Material heretics are the rest of us

By the way, regarding this quote:
>>The NOTES, for the most part, were prepared by the former members of Campus Crusade and such--the late AEOM, which has been disolved.<<

What happened to the AEOM that it was dissolved? I had heard that there were some, let us say, pastoral problems but don't know specifics.

Are they still considered to be part of the Antiochean Orthodox Church? What about Fr. Gilquist?