OK, Fr. Wiebe, I’ll rant and you rave! I’ll add facetiously that one like you, from whom I have heard so many pejorative comments, should not mind receiving a little straight talk now and then! In no way do I wish to "befuddle" your thinking, and so I’ll elaborate a bit, beginning by defining my terms. Then I propose to be done with my part of the conversation. I realize that your theological premises certainly differ from mine. I avoid any claim to RC orthodoxy. My e-mail exchange with you began with your pejorative jibe on 7 October, when you wrote: "...Dr. Luther['s] ...great failure ... was to allow the Sacrament of Orders to lapse. I was told by a Lutheran professor once that she believed this was in part because of his reading of the Petrine pericope on the 'priesthood of all believers' (WHICH OF COURSE IS HERESY [emphasis mine]) You said IS, not WAS, and so your definition of "heresy" not not match mine. 

Heresy, by standard definition, is "a theological doctrine or system rejected as false by ecclesiastical authority." Heresy differs from schism in that the heretic sometimes remains in the church despite "doctrinal errors," whereas the schismatic may be doctrinally "orthodox" but severs himself from the church. The Greek word "hairesis" (whence comes "heresy") originally signified merely the holding of a particular set of philosophical opinions. The term became pejorative after appropriation by Rome because it from the start regarded itself as the custodian of a divinely imparted revelation which it alone was authorized to expound. Thus, any interpretation that differed from the official one was necessarily "heretical." (I do not accept Rome’s claim to the "infallible magesterium.") 


Our Lord responded in a most NON-PEJORATIVE way when his disciples charged others with "heresy": Luke 9:49: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is with us." (Compare Mark 9:38-40) St. Paul, of course, was continually accused of heresy for preaching that converts need not adhere to the complex religion of Deuteronomy to become Christian. (Roman "legalism" very closely resembles the "religion of Deuteronomy," in my judgment.) In full agreement with Luther on the issue of apostolic succession, I ask rhetorically who was it who ordained St. Paul other than Christ himself—spiritually—on the road to Damascus. Our Lord, though, vehemently denounced Pharisees who said one thing and practiced another. Surely they were "de facto heretics" Just as surely, priests who have habitually practiced homosexuality are likewise "heretics," knowingly rejecting what I consider basic Christian values. ("What you do speaks so loud I can’t hear what you say.") Of course, ECUSA does not judge such behavior "heretical," nor I suspect from your e-mail do you.

In the 2nd century, we read, Rome increasingly devised criteria to test deviations from its official doctrines. The Apostolic Fathers appealed to the prophets and Apostles as sources of authority, and Irenaeus and Tertullian laid great stress on "the rule of faith," a loose summary of essential Christian beliefs handed down from apostolic times. (Tertullian also said, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens." That is "heresy" to me, as it was to Clement of Alexandria.) During early centuries, Rome dealt with many "heresies," among them a wide variety labeled "gnostic." (Later, church councils defined "orthodoxy" and condemned "heresy. Eventually, in the Western church, the doctrinal decision of a council had to be ratified by the pope. Historically, Rome excommunicated those it adjudged "heretics." In the 12th and 13th centuries, however, the Inquisition handed over "heretics to civil authorities for punishment, usually execution.

"Deo gratias," in the 16th century, the Reformation broke up Rome’s claimed monopoly of Christian doctrine. Anglicans of the Reformation—supported by the best scholars and theologians of their age, IMHO—as represented in the 39 Articles and BCP, outlined the Anglican Orthodoxy that I accept as my rule and guide. Concurrently, Anglicans denounced as heretics Roman Catholics, who necessarily advocated such doctrines as transubstantiation, Mariolotry, purgatory, brown scapulars, relics, etc. Though thankfully much modified by Vatican, the great Church of Rome still officially proclaims itself the true church—armed with infallible authority—and alone remains faithful to the medieval notion of "heresy," occasionally denouncing doctrines or opinions as such. Most of the great Protestant churches similarly started with the assumption that their own particular doctrines embodied the final statement of Christian truth. Along with the 20th-century ecumenical movement, however, most non-Roman Catholic churches began to modify their views, holding it not inconsistent for a person to maintain the doctrines of his own communion while not regarding as "heretics" those who hold different views. Regards. X KnoxDuncan@... 

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...