[MR] FW: Heresy

Tue Mar 5 07:41:04 PST 2002

-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Gaddy [mailto:rgaddy at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:39 AM
To: EoganOg at aol.com
Subject: RE: Heresy

  -----Original Message-----
  From: EoganOg at aol.com [mailto:EoganOg at aol.com]
  Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:11 PM
  To: rgaddy at bellsouth.net
  Subject: Re: Heresy

  Indeed, Eogan I had meant to take it off the list, but subsequent posts
would seem to make the discussion able to continue on it.  Like one other
author I am pleased to see a discussion of a major part of the history of
our period on the list, a part that is usually avoided.  So far at least, we
have shown ourselves to be more courteous and open than similar discussions
on other lists with no one attacking core beliefs to the other or claiming
to be "right".  Unfortunately I can find no evidence in the original
question beyond what has already been cited.  Women seemed to have played a
larger role in, for example the Waldensian movement, but since these were
"heretics" any evidence would be useless to the original question asked.

  My points have always been to show that "heresy" and "orthodox" are
relative terms, dependent on time and place (as well as point of view and
which "authority" was accepted).  The  "doctrines" of the Christian faith
have continued to evolve and be defined over a long period of time, with
some disagreement as to what is Orthodox and what is "heretical" as it has
developed.  Thus it is hard to use these terms without specifically
identifying  both the time and place in which they are being used.
Heretical is being on the loosing side of a question, orthodox is being on
the winning side.  We can argue about whether the "right" side lost or won,
but I see no point in that.

   This message was sent just to me, so I assume you want to take this off
list.  If you meant to send this to the Merry Rose, please forward my reply
on as well.

  In a message dated 3/4/02 7:14:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rgaddy at bellsouth.net writes:

    One does not need to look to Luther, one can go back to Huss or Waldo.

  Both condemned by the Church for heresy.  Huss for propogating the same
heresies espouced by Wycliff, and Waldo for any number of heretical
teachigns, such as denying the existence of purgatory, prayers for the dead,
that swearing oathes is a sin, etc.

  Waldo, however can not be documented for these supposed heresies until
AFTER he was excommunicated except perhaps the swearing of oaths.  The
rejection of prayers for the dead and some sacraments came after he was
denied them.  Waldo was actually condemned by his representative's answer to
a question of "believe in" in regards to anything except the Trinity, as at
that time it was contrary to doctrine to use that term for anything except
the Trinity....a "trick question" by the Council to show the "ignorance" of
the common people..." the unlearned".  Waldo's representatives who had
voluntarily gone to the council to receive approval were thus laughed out of
the Council.

    Also if one looks at the difference only a few years makes between the
view
    of heresy you might compare Waldo and his treatment with that of the
almost
    identical St Francis and the Franciscans.

  Both the Waldenses and the Franciscans encouraged poverty among their
members.  But where is the rampant heresy in the Franciscans that one found
among the Waldenses?  There is the difference.

  The major "heresy"  did not materialize until after the Council.  There
are remarkable similarities, and the one that Waldo was condemned for
(LAYMEN preaching) was a part of the Franciscan order, as was poverty.
Waldo 100 years later would have been accepted as orthodox, and perhaps the
"heretical" ideas of the group would never have come about.

      The problem of solo scriptoria or tradtiion goes much further back
than
    Luther, or even Waldo and Huss...

  Really?  I have always read that Luther was the first to espouse the "Sola
Scriptura" doctrine that is the hallmark of Protestantism.  Who espouses it
before him?

  Indeed as you mentioned Wyclif, it goes back at least to him. He declared
the Scriptures to be the only law of the church; (at this time there were
two competing popes). I believe it was in Wyclif's On Civil Lordship in 1376
but may have confused the source.  Certainly Hus also advocated this.
Wyclif's support of scripture as the exclusive standard of faith is even
mentioned (but skimmed over) in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Indeed it was not
this point, or even his opposition to property holding by the Church that
got him into trouble, but rather his attack on Transubstantiation.

    You didn't bite on the myth of the female pope....

  What was there for me to bite on?  Are you trying to bait me somehow?  The
myth of "Pope Joan" is just a myth.  It never happened, and it's pretty easy
to prove that it never happened.  No one other than anti-Catholic
propogandists takes it seriously.  We can talk about it if you like, but I
don't see its relavence.

  Those with serious scholarship of the period know this, those who are
dabbling do not, in a way it was a baited hook......you avoided it.  Sorry,
kind of the same trick question that the Council used against Waldo.......

    What about when there were TWO Roman popes?

  I assume you are referring to the Western Schism. Easy enough.  There was
only ever ONE Pope.  And there was one anti-pope, or false pope.  For a
while there was confusion over which was which, but there never were two
ligitimate popes at the same time.  In fact, at one point there were even
three men claiming to be pope.  But claiming to be pope doesn't make you
pope.  Did you know that there are a few anti-popes out there today, in
2002?  At least a couple I know of, calling themselves Pope Pius XIII.  No
one really takes them seriously other than their own small band of
followers.

  The issue was a bit more confusing in the fourteenth century, but it
doesn't change the fact there there was only ever one true pope.

  What is it that you are trying to prove here?

  That when two people claim authority, that whoever sides with the looser
is a heretic, though at the time may be considered orthodox.  I seem to
remember a period (During Hus?) that THREE people had reasonable (to their
advocates at least) claims to the Papacy.

  Aye,
  Eogan

    Rupert

  Indeed my  major point is to ask for clarity in the discussion (and its
tangents) by giving both date and place when discussing questions of
Orthodoxy or Heresy, less we be tempted to confusion.

  I will continue to attempt to find information on the original question,
but since the church has been so long male dominated, I fear if there was
evidence it has been repressed or destroyed as "heretical" or "unorthodox"
after its possible acceptance in an earlier time.

  Rupert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020305/4f31078a/attachment-0020.htm>