Definition, Scheme and General

[John]

This thread is for discussion of Belloc's definition of heresy, the scheme of his book and other topics of interest that don't fall into a discussion of the Five Heresies. Do you agree with Belloc's definition of heresy? His criticism of the modern mind? What heresies (in the Church or out) are or should be of greatest concern today? Has Belloc chosen the right five heresies to focus on? What is the correct response to heresy?

[John]

I am curious as to why Belloc defines Protestantism as a failed heresy, though I guess we'll find his argument when we get there. Though his isolation of the core of what Protestantism is - the rejection of authority, the rejection of the idea that anyone can tell me what truth is other than myself aided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, the falsity of this doctrine ought to be evident to everyone after the immediate fracturing of the Protestant churches - unless one holds that the Holy Spirit teaches different "truths" to different people.

[John]

I also found his suggestion that Modernism may perhaps be the final heresy, the anti-Christ, to be an interesting tease, though again, I guess we have to wait for the last section to find his reasoning.

[Fonch]

I try to answer some of your question. I think thatin the case of the protestantism Belloc said that it was a failed Heresy, because the protestantism did get it his objective the destruction of the Catholic Church, and the creation of of national Churches depending of the state. When Belloc and his brothers in arms spoke about the protestantism they are reffering to the capitalism and modern world. Chesterton and Belloc bet for a middle way against the comunism and Capitalism whose ending would be the disaster. In the case of comunism we saw his deadful effects.
The modernism is very closed that i wrote in my previous paragraph we are seeing at this momento the modernism was condemned by the Pope Saint Pious X it would be a long arm of the capitalism and with false science would treat the religión eliminating the sacred element. Really did not speak of the antichrist although he quote our friend Rober Hugh Benson, a jew converted to the catholic religión. He did not say his name, but my friend Alfonseca though that it could be Max Jacob. Really the modernism is that we know nowadays with the name of the progresism.

[Manuel]

Fonch wrote: Really did not speak of the antichrist although he quote our friend Rober Hugh Benson, a jew converted to the catholic religión. He did not say his name, but my friend Alfonseca though that it could be Max Jacob...

Fonch, I can't understand quite well what you have written here. But since you name me, I'll try to make it clear. The problem is, I think, Fonch and I read this book almost one year ago, and did discuss it off-line.

1. Belloc does actually call Modernism "The Antichrist" in the last paragraph of the Introduction:

Perhaps that will come, but not until the conflict between that modern anti-Christian spirit and the permanent tradition of the Faith becomes acute through persecution and the triumph or defeat thereof. It will then perhaps be called anti-Christ.

2. You refer to a Jew, converted to Catholicism, mentioned by Belloc in Chapter 6. Yes, it is true I thought the man mentioned could have been Max Jacob, but this is a little early to speak about that, it's better if you wait until we arrive there in our readings (:-)

[Fonch]

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: Really did not speak of the antichrist although he quote our friend Rober Hugh Benson, a jew converted to the catholic religión. He did not say his name, but my friend Alfonseca though..."

Ok my friend i will wait that we had read the book again. My problem is that i mixed all books that i have read to Hilaire Belloc. However this is his way of thinking.

[Jill]

His definition of heresy as "the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein" is very interesting. It seems to presume the truth of Catholicism, or at least it's completeness/integrity. As a convert, that's my view. I see the various Protestant denominations as focusing on one essential aspect of the faith or another (e.g. Scripture, conscience...) without counterbalancing it as Catholicism so carefully does.
I think, though, that "heresy" only applies to religious systems. Using it for Euclidian geometry sheds some light but isn't true to our common usage.
I love his novel approaches, e.g. calling the person who dares to allow the possibility of miracles a "heretic" to the positivistic "orthodoxy."
I wonder if we can regard Christianity as essential to current Europe or just its history.
He says religion is necessary to any society. I think this is only true if you call "secularism" a "religion." It certainly is a premise that has to be taken on faith rather than proven, but communists and other secularists would probably think of themselves as anti-religious.
I don't understand what he means by calling the government of the U.S. "monarchic".
At this writing, he says there's no accepted name for what he calls "modernism." Today we might call it "post-Christian"?

[Manuel]

Jill wrote: "His definition of heresy as "the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein" is very interesting. It seems to presu..."

1. I agree with Jill that using [the term "heresy" for non-]Euclidian geometry sheds some light but isn't true to our common usage. Yes, I wouldn't call the non-Euclidean geometries heresies, as they are full axiomatic sets in their own right, therefore they don't exactly follow Belloc's definition. But then, he was a historian, not a mathematician (:-) But I agree with Belloc that his definition can be used elsewhere, specially in philosophy, not just in religion.

2. Perhaps "secularism" is not a religion, but atheism clearly is, in all its manifestations. They have missionaries (like Richard Dawkins); their main enemies are Christians (specially Catholics), as was to be expected, for they are their nearest and most powerful enemies. The fact that they don't believe in God is not an argument, for Hinayana Buddhists are also atheists and nobody thinks on calling them anything but religion.

3. He says the U.S. political system is monarchic because the President has maximum power (or at least he had in 1938, when this book was published), while the United Kingdom is Republican and Aristocratic, as it was then ruled by an assembly of mainly members of the Nobility, while the King was (and is) a decorative figure. At this light, the U.S. can be considered an elective monarchy with a marked time for each "reign."

4. There still is no accepted name for what Belloc calls "modernism." Some would call it "gender ideology," but that is a partial term. I prefer calling it "the dominant ideology," "atheism," or just "the anti-Christ," as he did.

[Fonch]

Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "His definition of heresy as "the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein" is very interesting. It s..."
Yes i have the impression that i repeated my speech, but otherwise i totally agree with Manuel Alfonseca, more than historian Belloc is a jornalist, politician, and a big knowledger of the history. It was closer to this labbel Christopher Dawson, or for example Lord Acton. This thing did not avoid that Belloc, and G.K. Chesterton were the most powerful influence in my historical view, much more that the historian that in the degree the professors tried to insert in my head. I have not anything in common with annale, microhistory, and the marxist history. My view it is the view of the catholic and christian historians Vico, Ranke (although i did not share his anticatholic and his protestantism), Donoso Cortes, Menendez Pelayo, Lord Acton, G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Christopher Dawson and others.
Heresy in the primitive meaning would be doctrine, system, and i agree with Alfonseca the definition of heresy is closer to the the historian, and religious person. Juan Manuel de Prada quoting to the anarchist Proudhon said that all political system is inspired in theological heresy. Indeed the comunism is a religion, without God, but it is a religion, where the state replaced to God, and he has his paradise in the earth with the dictatorship of the workers. The own Marx was satanist, although he was brought up by Jesuits.
In the topic of the atheism Alfonseca is right the atheist had a quarrel, because some atheist wanted to have shrines and rites to promote the atheism. Although some religions as Alfonseca said were system, and philosophies without God, as the budhism, at least a good part of the buddhism.
In the point three Chesterton in a lot of ocassions said that United States was republican, because they were founded by aristocrat as Whasingthon and Jeffersson.

The modernism tried to destrioyed the christianity with heterodoxian heresy, and when they were that the christian believers did not pay. They dedicated to entering in their bed, by this was they obtained a total success to go far the beliebers to the religion. The sexual revolution of 50th, and 60th with Freud and Kinsey, was essential to provoke the apostasy of the christianity. Chesterton announced a new heresy that he romote the lustful, and this system will avoid the birth, excatly the same that we are suffering nowadays. Now we are suffering the gender ideology, which is a spreading of this heresy, but it was not the last step. The last heresy will be the temptation of the Genesis they tried that the mankind was his own God, and that my friend Jorge Saez Criado told in his novel (unfortunatelly not translated to English) "Apocalypse: the Day of Lord" can be mixed with a satanic rites.

[John]

Jill wrote: "I wonder if we can regard Christianity as essential to current Europe or just its history."

If you think that Christianity was foundational for the West (Europe and the United States) and I do. Then as with any other structure whose foundation you undermine, the future of the post-Christian West is unlikely to be a pleasant place. I think a fair part of Western Europe is on borrowed time and the U.S. is not far behind.

[Jill]

What about Jansenism, the scrupulous notion that doing the right things is a ticket to heaven (and always looking over your shoulder for fear that you're falling short).

[Mariangel]

I just finished it. I like the fact that it's short, because it made the overall theme so clear. Most of the quotes I liked had already been mentioned here by the time I got to them.

[Fonch]

Jill wrote: "What about Jansenism, the scrupulous notion that doing the right things is a ticket to heaven (and always looking over your shoulder for fear that you're falling short)."

The Jansenism is a specie of catholic protestant it was condemned by Urban VIII (he banned the book Agustinus), equal as the protestantism it is based in wrong interpretation of the Saint Agustine doctrine. The problem is very closed to the calvinism and the faith rejecting the traditional faith way, especially the actions to combat the Jansenism appeared the sacred heart and the Saint Margaret Alacoque, and the enemies of the jansenism were the Jesuits. The Jesuits radical view created the opposite doctrine, equally rejected the Quietism the opposite. The Jansenism gave an important figure Pascal on the other hand his struggles against Catholic Church influenced in the french ilustration, and the french revolution. Quesnay Turgot and the economic movement of Phisiocracy is based in the Jansenism, and in the 19th century the liberal writers Vigny, Stendhal, Dumas, Vitor Hugo employed to attack the Catholic Religion, especially the Jesuits. We must wait to the twenty century to the image of the jesuits were restored. This theory and the galicanism influenced in France in several writers as Bernanos, Mauriac, Maritain but it has a heterodox component.

[Jill]

Jansenism may be similar to some types of Protestantism but professed its loyalty to the Catholic Church.

[Fonch]

Jill wrote: "Jansenism may be similar to some types of Protestantism but professed its loyalty to the Catholic Church."

Jill it is truth that Pacal is a good influence, but i want to remind you that the Jansenism was condemned. I copy this of Wikipedia "On this occasion, the Pope Clement XI with the Constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius (1713) gave a formal conviction a 101 propositions contained in the writings of Quesnel. Then, the jansenist movement (already without possibility of escape conviction as they had fans previously by means of multiple interpretations of Pontifical texts) appealed to a Council and, by this, his supporters were called "appellants". Clement XI excommunicated them through the bull Pastoralis officii (1718)."https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenismo

[Jill]

I realize Jansenism was heretical and justly condemned, I was just making the point that it was a Catholic heresy, not to be lumped with Protestantism.

[Fonch]

Jill wrote: "I realize Jansenism was heretical and justly condemned, I was just making the point that it was a Catholic heresy, not to be lumped with Protestantism."
Well the fact that the protestantism triumphed, and continue existing. It does not mean that it was not a Heresy, and the second The Jansenism it was very closed to the protestantism for this reason Belloc included in this category.