[MR] Women and the Early Church

[EoganOg at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/1/02 8:37:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, sfdowns at pinn.net 
writes:


> If "history is a science," then you need to give precise, scientific
> definitions for "heresies," "authentic Catholic teaching," and "correct,
> orthodox teaching."  Frankly, these do not sound like the words of a
> researcher who is "examining the evidence clearly and objectively," but
> rather display a fairly obvious bias.  I have nothing against people being
> biased about religious issues, I know I am myself, but if you claim to be
> objectively practicing science, you can't use words like heresy, authentic,
> correct and orthodox.  These are words which connote distinct value
> 

Anyone who is going to do a study of Church history should familiarize 
themselves with these terms, that are not subjective but rather precise.

Catholic teaching can be defined to include the teachings of the Church as 
promulgated by the Magesterium (that is the teaching body of bishops) at 
Church councils.  Also infallibly pomulgated statements of the bishop of 
Rome, that is, the Pope.

As for "orthodox" teaching and "teaching of the universal church" they would 
fall under the same definition.  "Catholic" was adopted as the name of the 
church because the term means "universal."  Orthodox means right thinking, 
correct, and is also a term applied to the authentic teaching of the Church.

"Heresy" is then a contradiction or perversion of that teaching.  St. Thomas 
defined heresy as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the 
faith of Chrst, corrupt its dogmas."  

He further says, altough this is probably more than you wanted to know:
"The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the 
heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own 
approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous 
judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of 
these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary 
conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely 
objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the 
intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority 
of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or 
exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; 
the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material 
interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy 
thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree 
of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the 
informative element of 'freely willed'."

Frankly, if one is to have any hope of understanding the history of the 
Church, one most certainly needs to understand notions of Catholic, Orthodox 
(both with little "c"s and "o"s and capital), heresy and schism.  These are 
truly *not* subjective terms, but objective.  Indeed, it is possible for a 
devout Chrsitain, an athiest, a Hindu, and a neo-Pagan to understand the 
meaning and application of these terms.  

You don't need to believe in Catholic teaching to understand what it is.  You 
don't need to condemn a heresy to understand that it is heretical.  To claim 
that one cannot be objective regarding Church history and still use these 
terms and definitions is to deny the entire study of Church history, and 
indeed the history of early and medieval Europe!  You can't talk about it 
without talking of orthodox teachings and heresies.

Aye,
Eogan


Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020301/8c7a2490/attachment-0023.htm>