Notes:
+ Summary
1. The Orthodox catholic faith of the Christians was once for all delivered to the saints, revealed and pure
2. Heresy is a parasitical innovation, an alteration of the true faith, and is always incoherent and deficient. It is reductionistic, which is expressed in its being named often after its founder
3. Heresy is almost always a deliberative deviation from the apostolic norm due to sin. Common motivations are a love of the new, discontent, pride, indiscreet curiosity, love of power, and greed for ecclesiastical office
4. Heresy develops under the providence of God and is the fulfillment of New Testament prophecies. Christians should not be surprised nor scandalized by the appearance of heresies, and should accomplish God’s work in opposing them. This work includes the love of the heretic and efforts at his recovery, as well as the acknowledgement of, and affixation to those leaders of the church who are approved
+ Categories of heresy
1. Authority
2. Theology
3. Soteriology
4. Ecclesiology
+ Pope Leo III on the Filioque
- Wrote to western monks in 808 that they were forbidden to use the filioque in the creed
- Wrote to Charlemagne denouncing the interpolated creed, saying that not even he himself would presume equality with the authority of the fathers, as the Frankish synod had presumed to do
- Had the Greek original without the filioque and a Latin translation inscribed on silver plaques and set up in St. Peter’s in Rome
Potent Quotables:
Where is the reality of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of scripture if even those bound by faculty, friendship, politics, and faith cannot agree on the meaning of the central Christian act of worship - the Holy Eucharist?
Extra-biblical words like “trinity” and “hypostatic union” could be judged inappropriate by the rather naive biblicism and disregard for traditional dogma of the Anabaptists.
The issue of slavery divided the various Baptist churches, and the SBC [Southern Baptist Convention] actually formed itself in order to defend white supremacy and the validity of slavery. In 1995, the SBC adopted a resolution to renounce its racist roots.
Theological criticism of infant baptism could equally be applied to infant circumcision and thus be a criticism of God’s ancient institutions.
Were not the 318 Nicene fathers bishops? Did they not believe that the Eucharist was the very body and blood of Jesus Christ? Did they not celebrate the liturgy, honor monasticism, venerate relics, make holy pilgrimage, express devotion to the Holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, pray for the departed, invoke the saints, obey sacred canons, and read scripture in accord with the tradition? The answer, of course, to these questions is yes. And so, the reformers and their descendants have this question to answer: Why do they demand adherence to the trinitarian positions of the holy fathers while explicitly or implicitly degrading these same holy fathers by their Protestant criticisms? How can Protestant teachers be consistent in demanding an adherence to the dogmas of the fathers of the early councils when these same fathers believed the Holy Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Christ, worshiped liturgically, prayed to saints, venerated the Mother of God, insisted on the governance of the church by bishops, and interceded for the repose of departed souls? Why accept the creeds of these councils but reject their canons - something that the fathers of the councils themselves explicitly forbade? This dilemma remains unsolved even for Protestants today. Protestants say they wish to preserve the fundamental teachings of Christianity, yet denigrate the lives of those Christians who articulated these fundamental teachings.
It is a particular irony and illustrative of what a low view of the church and ordination Calvin had, that he himself never appears to have been ordained by anyone. How Sola Scriptura justifies ordination without a laying on of hands by a person in appropriate ecclesiastical authority, when that same Scriptura everywhere witnesses to this reality, is illogical.
While studying the Epistle to the Romans, [Arminius] came to disbelieve the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. It is ironic that the study of the same epistle by different reformers led them to such differing conclusions, despite their affirmation that scripture is clear and interprets itself without the necessity of the Holy Fathers.
Since Vatican 2, a Latin ecclesiology of Protestants as “separated brethren” and not as “anathematized heretics” has come to be the official Catholic teaching.
We confess that the Eucharist was given to us by Jesus Christ to be consumed, not to be paraded with outside of the divine service, as in Latin Corpus Christi processions, nor to be placed in a monstrance and adored by the faithful in holy hours. This is, in fact, a Latin abuse of the Eucharist itself. Our Lord's words are “take, eat,” not “take, parade” or “take, adore.”
To be born again is to be born of water and the spirit in Holy Baptism. The Evangelical notion of being born again places that experience definitively outside of the realm of true Christian baptism, and substitutes a tent revival, altar call, or some such intangible pseudo-sacrament for the mystery of Holy Baptism.
The Protestant reformers threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. They rejected the innovations of the papacy by becoming still greater innovators. They rejected the pope, and each reformer made himself a pope, and demonstrated great indignation at those Protestants who did not follow in theological lock-step.
Why do Lutheran, Calvinistic, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist creeds all differ on fundamental points if the Bible alone is the only authority of the reformers?
The church is a historical body, and has been on the earth for thousands of years. One need simply ask this question of one’s Christian community: Who founded my church? If the answer is someone whose name is not Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, or Matthaeus, then be assured you are not in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Why must Mormons maintain a belief in the first three paragraphs of the creed to be Christian, but the Protestants can reject the fourth paragraph of the creed with impunity? Essential Christian teaching required to be a member of the church involves not just an affirmation of the teaching on the father, son, and Holy Spirit, but also on the church, as expressed in the fourth paragraph of the creed. Protestantism is neither one, nor holy (for it is without saints), nor catholic, nor apostolic.
Protestantism has been unable to control, in any cohesive way, the new hermeneutic of individualistic authority it established in its efforts to shake off papal dominance. Protestantism has been a runaway theological train from the beginning.