I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

A friend recently made the following statement regarding the heresy of Arianism: >The conflict was about the nature of Christ before the Creation of the Universe. It was a Philosophical/Metaphysical cum Theological difference which really had no practical manifestation in terms of Saving Faith or practice. As Arianism denies the divinity of Christ and the fullness of the Godhead, I am inclined to disagree. (The emphasis of my studies are mostly biblical theology with an Old Testament emphasis and this is a systematics issue.) What impact, if any, does an Arian view of Christ have on a person's salvation? While I welcome answers from a purely biblical perspective, I also welcome historical arguments and answers quoting authors from the time of and close to the controversy.

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

If we define perfection as ["complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect) then the answer may that God is not yet perfect because humans have not always responded as God intended. There seems to be some scriptural basis for this. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says: > The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is > patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come > to repentance. Logically, if God wishes all to come to repentance but all do not respond, then God's wish is unfulfilled. Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life." If we apply this to the situation described in 2 Peter, then God's heart is sick, because His desire has not been fulfilled (that all come to repentance). We also get a sense of God's heart being broken elsewhere in scripture, as the prophets speak of Him as feeling like a husband whose wife has betrayed him, or as a father whose children have gone astray. The argument for God not being perfect boils down the idea that God desires a relationship with His children and that He suffers when we do not respond to His love. Is this idea heretical, or may Christians accept it without falling into serious error? (Note: the question does not seek arguments in favor of God's perfection/completeness, but is concerned primarily with the issue of whether or not belief in God's perfection is necessary to Christian faith.) ---------- Addendum: I hope readers will understand the question as I have defined it (the issue of God's "completeness" as opposed to the issue of His moral perfection). I've edited the title accordingly.

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

Abraxas is a well known anguiped (snake legged) figure, associated with Gnosticism and possibly with Alexandrian esoteric Judaism . It played a role at various points in the history of Christianity as a symbol of heresy, for example as a seal of certain Templar individuals and local chapters. The "Snake-Legged Goddess" or "Tendril-Legged Goddess" is another, earlier, anguiped divine figure associated with Scythian origin legends. Given that their respective followers co-existed within the context of Hellenistic religious culture before and during the Roman Empire, assuming a possible connection seems to make sense. However, I was not able to find any source making the connection explicitly. Are there any?

[Full preterists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) believe that all prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, including those related to the final resurrection, the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment. I have met some Protestant preterists who believe that their beliefs are in accord with the ecumenical creeds, despite language in the creeds that seems to imply that the Second Coming and other eschatological events are yet to come. Do any Roman Catholic or Protestant councils or creeds specifically state that full preterist beliefs are heretical?

The Bible teaches that we should seek truth and avoid falsehoods. However, when it comes to things like the shape of the earth, most Christians rely on information from governments or scientists, since none of us have personally verified it by traveling to space. If a Christian sincerely believes something that is false (like the earth being flat or round), before it has been revealed to them or verified firsthand, is that considered heresy, or just ignorance? At what point does holding a false belief cross into spiritual error? I'm especially interested in how this applies when the belief doesn’t directly affect one’s salvation or core doctrines. Is believing in a scientifically incorrect idea — even unknowingly — a form of heresy in the eyes of the Church or Scripture?

[Humbert of Silva Candida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_of_Silva_Candida) was an important medieval theologian, best known for his involvement in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. He was also a vocal proponent of a number of views, such as papal authority and clerical celibacy. On this latter point, Everett Ferguson writes that he "said that sacraments administered by married clerics were invalid," and then continues: > Humbert's later work *Against the Simoniacs* in three books made a similar claim: Any cleric appointed to office by a layman, no matter how honestly, could not administer valid sacraments, a doctrine that revived the viewpoint of Donatism, which made the validity of sacraments depend on the status of the administrator. ([*Church History*, I, 19.V.B](https://books.google.com/books?id=mRQwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT351)) This does sound like Donatism to me, but I don't see any indication on Wikipedia or elsewhere that Humbert's views actually violated Catholic dogma. In light of subsequent clarifications of the doctrines of the sacraments, are these views of Humbert's considered problematic in modern Catholicism?

I’ve been exploring Panentheism (not to be confused with *Pantheism*) and certain elements speak to my own experience of God. I also understand that this theology is embraced by some contemporary Christian thinkers. I just wondered if this was considered a heresy by the established church (Anglican or Roman Catholic)? Panentheism, in simple terms and as far as I understand it , is the idea that God is within and interpenetrates the whole of creation, but is at the same time above and beyond it in space and time. In other words, God is both immanent and transcendent. Pantheism, in contrast, is the idea that the universe IS God, and that God is the universe. There is no other than the created order. Contemporary Christian panentheists include - Richard Rohr - Ilia Delio - John Polkinghorne - Cynthia Bourgeault - Jurgen Moltmann - Phillip Clayton

(Related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/78085/48290) Most know Sir Isaac Newton as the person who discovered gravity when he observed the fall of an apple or his discovery of light being a particle, but few are aware of his religious views. For one, he held much disdain for Catholics and the Anglican church. He was an Antitrinitarian monotheist, declaring the trinity idolatry. Some would call him a heretic. Many did, but he has never been ostracized. He was not public about his views and his study of alchemy. Today, is he still branded as a heretic?

This simple question was the center of the quarrel around Port-Royal and the efficacious grace in the 17th century in France. In fact, the defenders of Cornelius Jansen’s *Augustinus* argued that they agreed to state that those five propositions were heretical. However they didn’t recognize that they were in the posthume book of the bishop of Ypres. --- In one word, I’m searching for an answer to the famous *question de fait* (*question of fact*) stated in the first *Provinciale*: >Celle de fait consiste à savoir si M. Arnauld est téméraire pour avoir dit dans sa Seconde Lettre : Qu’il a lu exactement le livre de Jansénius, et qu’il n’y a point trouvé les propositions condamnées par le feu Pape ; et néanmoins que, comme il condamne ces propositions en quelque lieu qu’elles se rencontrent, il les condamne dans Jansénius, si elles y sont. Translation : >The question of fact consisted in ascertaining whether M. Arnauld was guilty of presumption, for having asserted in his second letter that he had carefully perused the book of Jansenius, and that he had not discovered the propositions condemned by the late pope; but that, nevertheless, as he condemned these propositions wherever they might occur, he condemned them in Jansenius, if they were really contained in that work. Was Arnauld right not to find the propositions? --- --- **So, in short, my question is:** 1. Are the propositions in Jansen's book? 2. If yes, where **exactly** in the book? A page and/or quotation (even not translated) would be great. Many thanks for your answers! --- Reminder: the five propositions condemned are : 1. Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive to keep them, considering the powers they actually have; the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting to them. 1. In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace. 1. In order to merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature, we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity. 1. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it. 1. It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men.

Meister Eckhart was a thirteenth-fourteenth century philosopher, theologian, and mystic who lived and worked in the Dominican Order. In later life, he was accused of heresy and brought up before the local Franciscan-led Inquisition, and tried as a heretic by Pope John XXII. He seems to have died before his verdict was received. What is the status now? Was he ever officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church or are his teachings recommended like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas or other saints?

From Wikipedia : > Basilides is reported as having taught a docetic doctrine of Christ's > passion . Although Irenaeus’s makes no mention of Basilides having > written a gospel, he does record him as teaching that Christ in Jesus, > as a wholly divine being, could not suffer bodily pain and did not die > on the cross; but that the person crucified was, in fact, Simon of Cyrene : >> He appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles. Thus he himself >> did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled to >> carry his cross for him. It was he who was ignorantly and erroneously >> crucified, being transfigured by him, so that he might be thought to >> be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon, and stood by >> laughing at them. Has anyone ever refuted this claim made by Basilides, that Simon of Cyrene has died on the cross instead of Jesus?

Some Christians hold that the Second Coming of Jesus is yet to come, and some hold it has already happened (certain kinds of preterism). Would holding that Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:30, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.") was prophesying an event that has already happened (say, associated with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple) be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

I was said that some pope of last centuries wrote a document where he stated this idea: "A priest can say three heresies in a sermon but must not insist on them." I have a suspicion that I have seen that somewhere, but I cannot remember now where it was? Can you help my poor memory? :-) Thanks

I have encountered a guy online who insists that Christ no longer has human flesh or a human body. Sometimes he seems to say that Christ no longer has a human nature but I haven't been able to pin him down on that. This doesn't sound like any of the major heresies I'm familiar with from the first five centuries of the church and I'm wondering if it has a name; I haven't been able to find one for this and would like to research it -- and having a name would help. For what it's worth, one of his arguments is that the phrase "in the days of His flesh" in Hebrews indicates that Christ no longer has flesh. edit: This guy affirms that salvation was achieved on the Cross, and agrees that physical existence is good, but seems to regard Christ's human body as a sort of temporary tool for accomplishing redemption and thus no longer necessary. He also gives the impression that having a human body in heaven would be degrading.

There's an infamous story from early church history of the dispute over the correct date for celebration of Easter, which got so heated that people even called their opponents heretics over it and attempted to excommunicate them. (See Eusebius, *Ecclesial History* Book V.23-25). On the other hand, the earliest writing I know of to acknowledge faithfulness of Christians on both sides of a debate is the issue of the future millennial kingdom: Justin Martyr says this in approximately 160 AD in his *Dialogue with Trypho* ch.80, where he says that "many good and pious" Christians think otherwise. Is this the oldest example of a Christian author acknowledging legitimate disagreement about some issue? If not, what is the older "acceptable" dispute? (And let's leave out the issues mentioned by Paul in Romans 14 - I'd like to know about sources outside of the Bible itself.)

I stumbled across the wikipedia article for a sedevacantist, schismatic Catholic group called the Palmarian Catholic Church which states that this group > has also declared the Real Presence of the Virgin Mary in the sacred host and the bodily assumption into heaven of St. Joseph to be dogmas of the Catholic faith I don't really know whether I should be shocked, outraged, amused or curious, but I'll go with curious. Would anyone happen to know the theological justification for the dogma of the Real Presence of Mary in the Eucharist?

Europe underwent major economic upheavals during the creation of Protestantism (cf. E. Michael Jones, *Barren Metal* or *Goy Guide to World History* ). Is this one reason why Protestants upheld iconoclasm ? Was it a sense of necessity or utilitarianism (that having a minimally decorated church is better than having no church at all) that inspired or justified their iconoclasm ? In other words: Was there an economic reason for Protestants' iconoclasm ?