Talk:Heresy in Christianity/Archive 1

Worst Introduction
This article has one of the worst introductions I've ever seen on a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam sk (talk • contribs)

I agree, but it looks like there was something else there at one time and was deleted. The current first paragraph sounds more like something that got moved up from later in the text. Sigil7 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So... have you ever read WP:SOFIXIT? Rather than just criticizing, you could help improve the article.  That said, Sigil17's hunch is more or less right.  I created this article from an amalgam of stuff taken from Heresy, Early Christianity and History of Christianity.  If the intro is lame, it's because I haven't spent any time focusing on it.  Perhaps you could suggest how the intro could be improved and we can work on it together. --Richard 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the "Christianity" section of Heresy is now in dire need of improvement after I eviscerated it to make this article. The summary there is also pretty lame.  Your help would be much appreciated. --Richard 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Montanism orthodox?
This article contains the bizarre sentence, "The sect was much more orthodox than Christianity." This is self-contradictory. By definition, a heresy cannot be orthodox; orthodoxy is the opposite of heresy. Orthodoxy means, literally, "right belief" or "right worship," whereas a heresy is a different school of thought (as distinguished from orthodoxy). The author seems to be confusing "orthodoxy" with "strictness." MishaPan 17:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they considered themselves orthodox (and everybody else borderline-heretical). Actually, describing one view as orthodox and another view as heretical (in articles like these) strikes me as blatant, if widespread, POV. Jacob Haller 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another consequence of copying text from Early Christianity and History of Christianity. The sentence in question should probably be changed.  How should we change it?  Should we just delete it or can the sentence be salvaged? --Richard 14:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Major overhaul required
I concur completely with Mr. Haller above. This whole article strikes me as deeply and hopelessly misguided--at first, I thought it was just the bizarre attempt to make a "list of Christian heresies." But the whole article is written in this spirit, that its purpose is to provide information about those Christian denominations (active and historical) that are "heretical," or to provide some sort of general description of what heresy is. Does this strike anyone else as a preposterous project? Obviously, every denomination (movement, theology, etc.) considers itself orthodox, and all who disagree with it (over the most important things, at least) heretical. There is absolutely no potential for a NPOV. (I'm no relativist, BTW. I firmly believe that my own denomination is correctly called orthodox, and that certain others are correctly called heretical.) An account of what is generally considered by Christians to be heretical would contain absolutely zero information, since the word is used only for disputes among professed Christians (the only thing unique about e.g. Arianism is that its proponents are all dead). . I cannot imagine how this article might be salvaged in anything remotely resembling its current form. The only halfway decent part is the Catholic part, on things like the RC definition of the term, historic use of the term (eg current decline, due to ecumenical sensitivities), response to heresy, etc. It's horribly written, poorly cited, and not particularly accurate, but at least they've got the right idea. We should provide the same information about Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, (the current "protestant" article is very poor), and so forth--and add country-specific information too, since historically it was the state that technically policed and punished heresy by laymen. . . . Get rid of all the other nonsense, and for heaven's sake address the general historical information on Christian denominations (even dead ones) on their own pages, or on ones for "historical" or "ancient Christian sects" or something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.32.37 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The word “orthodox” is used meaningfully to distinguish groups throughout history. Said differently, historical texts (books, journals, textbooks) all use the word “orthodox” in a meaningful way.  It separates one group, the group that continued beyond antiquity / middle ages (depending on the context), from arians, monophysites, manicheans, donatists, gnostics, and so on.  This encyclopedia is not about setting trends, but (as a tertiary source) it follows the secondary literature, and since this employs orthodox / heresies meaningfully, so should we.  To do otherwise would be out of our place.  All these groups, by the way, ended at a given historical point, so there is no risk in offending their members (modern reconstructionist movements, if they exist at all, are “neo” movements, not historically continuously connected to antiquity and thus outside of the scope of the terminology).  I myself am using orthodox / heretical to distinguish between Catholics and Monophysites in my own thesis at present, without ado.  In my view, objections to establish historical usage are based on ignorance of the literature and its terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

I stand partially corrected. NPOV / accepted academic terminology is indeed a sociologically determined standard, and therefore the extinction of a sect does indeed make it OK to call them "heretical," just as e.g. a historical claimant can certainly be called a "pretender" in a way that would be inappropriate if the controversy were live at the time of writing. So yes, there's absolutely no NPOV violation in calling arians, etc., "heretics." That said, let me make a few comments:

First, the "list of heresies" section does need major culling by someone as principled as you. It has numerous post-antiquity sects on the list--including some still practised today, such as the Bogomils, and even some inclusions that are little more than a blatant attempt to insult (eg "Christian Zionists"). Second, even the standards you provide are quite telling. There is no such thing as "the" group that continued beyond the middle ages (unless one ends the middle ages in the fifth century); there are three: Chalcedoneans, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Church of the East. But you did say "antiquity," so perhaps you meant only to call older movements "heresies"...but then how did you write your dissertation on monophysites and use the term for them? The Church of the East is older, both by date of origin as a distinct movement and by date of schism, than the monophysites (and I assume by "monophysites" you mean eutychianism rather than OO, since they're still around, and proudly and legitimately identify as non-Chalcedonean), the youngest "heresy" you mention and the subject of your dissertation (good luck, btw; I am a Catholic grad student too!). If both Chalcedoneans and Church of the East(who readily and legitimately identify themselves with the 431 schism) are "orthodox," but the eutychians "heretics," we can see the true nature of the terminology employed: Orthodox does not, as you suggest, have some taxonomic legitimacy as a "group" or branch of Christianity; rather, responsible scholars like yourself are simply employing a term, which in its primary purpose simply means "correct," in a convenient and objective manner by taking ad hoc the toy perspective of the nonextinct group--e.g., when writing about the eutychians versus Chalcedoneans, you call the latter "orthodox" not because Chalcedoneanism constitutes or subsumes "orthodox Christianity" in some single principled, academically accepted, context-invariant sense of the term, but rather for your legitimate convenience in that particular paper.

I therefore urge: (i) That the primary, denomination-subjective meaning of orthodoxy versus heresy be put front and center--with a section explaining how it has been adapted as an objective term in historical scholarship--alongside my previous suggestions for denomination-by-denomination information; (ii) That extinct sects be dealt with in WP simply by their place in the Christian historical-theological taxonomy, since the fact that they can acceptably be called "heresies" is entirely an artefact of standards of academic etiquette and is of absolutely no inherent interest whatsoever. Following those standards is indeed our duty, and I stand corrected that this is not a NPOV issue. But here we have centered the article around the standards, and it's kind of misleading. What's helpful for a paper about a particular controversy is unhelpful as a blanket term in an encyclopedia article.


 * Well, there are certainly a lot of point there to discuss, and its difficult to decide where to begin. I will say, to begin, that I don’t mean to say that the current form of the article is conclusive in any sense; rather, I spoke only of the spirit of the topic.  I think all would agree that work needs to be done, in some places extensively.  Let me say that I think we can make distinction between contexts.  A medieval western context is importantly distinct from antiquity, based around a Mediterranean culture.  But, in a medieval context, I think we can safely call Catharism a heresy and its opponent orthodoxy without worrying over the relation between Latin Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox or other Eastern groups.  This would need to be a careful process, perhaps best divided into other articles or at least separate sections, with proper historical contexts distinguished.  And I think you are right that we need to consider Oriental Orthodox in a much different way.  In other words, “non-Chalcedonians” is a separate category that is simply not the same as Arianism and the like.  There are still “non-Chalcedonian” groups and their relationship with other groups is complex.  But this itself is not insurmountable, as a proper historical view, observing later reunifications and similar movements, can, in my view, provide a path forward – a cautious one.  “Eutychianism”, as you put it, is indicative of the intricacies in Christological issues and provides a real challenge to treating the material here and points to inner distinctions between “Monophysitism” / “Monothelitism” that simply cannot be accurately simplified into simple categories.  But this does not change the fact that Docetism or Gnosticism can be fairly called a heresy, and I think we can carefully walk the tightrope if we are cautious, as you rightly observe.  Thus, this has been a roundabout way of saying that your suggestions, (i) and (ii), are sage and well meaning, and should be taken seriously and followed with due diligence.  We need proper contextualization, particular to given historical settings, and delicate articulation.  That said, I believe we can safely call groups heretical without worry or violation of policy, following academic precedents.  I would like to extend personal gratitude for the advice and well thought out points.  Lostcaesar 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the scholarly-historical sense still conflates 'who won' with 'who was right.' I don't think it helps to describe any religious views as heretical. Jacob Haller 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree and disagree. I fully understand your point.  Do we argue that Mormons are heretics?  How about Jehovah's Witnesses?  Are they any more or less heretical than some of the heresies which were active in the early history of the Church but have died out since that time?  I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to say "x, y and z beliefs are heretical" as if it were true because we would be required to pass judgment on all sorts of Christian theology ranging from Mormons to JWs to liberation theology.  The problem, of course, is that a belief can only be heresy in reference to an orthodoxy and we are then hamstrung as to which orthodoxy we should consider to be orthodox.


 * However, it is reasonable to say "x is considered heretical by most Christians whereas y is considered heretical by Catholics".  To act as if the word "heresy" has never been used to apply to Christian beliefs is just as bad as to pretend that we are in a position to judge what is and is not heresy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.45.152 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * --Richard 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we must define orthodox. The article is not talking about the word orthodox, but rather the denomination of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Plus we must be clear that the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics did not split from early christianity, but rather that they went into schism with one another.
 * Incorrect. The article is not about Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but is entitled Heresy in Christianity.  As such is it a silly article filled with personal opinions related to personal points of view.  Rewritting is probably not possible since it has no appropriate foundation to begin with.  I vote for its removal in its entirety. - KitchM (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition(s) of Heresy
Well for the Eastern Orthodox heresy means a choice to go against how the established tradition runs and councils of the East. If a group or individual disagrees with the ecumenical councils in whole or in part then they fall into heresy. I can not per say tell what the definition is for the other groups of mainstream christianity. LoveMonkey 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Heresies
It is clearly non-neutral POV to label traditions heresies as such, which the list does. In contrast, it would be NPOV to state when one tradition considers another tradition heretical. POV: Arianism is a heresy. NPOV: The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople condemned Arianism as a heresy. Yes, it's longer, but it's NPOV and more informative too. As written the list amounts to the former POV statement for each tradition. Jacob Haller 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... good point. I had thought vaguely about the issue but I hadn't come up with a good solution until I read your comment.  How about we put it into a table and have the name of the heresy in the first column, a brief explanation of the heresy in the second column, notable leaders in the third, councils and other pronouncements against the heresy in the fourth and maybe comments in a fifth?  This should be more useful to the reader than just a list of wikilinks.  Of course, we would keep the wikilinks for readers who want more detail.
 * --Richard 22:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd suggest breaking this down into smaller lists, e.g.:
 * Doctrines which the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople considered heretical with short summary paragraph on the councils, the disputes, etc., and which churches accept the councils...
 * Doctrines which the Council of Chalcedon considered heretical with short summary of the Christological controversy, etc.
 * Doctrines which the later Roman Catholic Church considered heretical before the Council of Trent
 * Doctrines which the later Eastern Churches considered heretical
 * and so on as appropriate... Jacob Haller 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpretive categorization of heresies
re: a proper categorization of heresies, it is most pertinent to highlight the nature of the heresy in some kind of interpretive manner. Orthodoxy has been in the process of self-definition for centuries, defining itself in terms of its faith and changing or clarifying beliefs in opposition to people or doctrines that are perceived as wrong. A process of categorization might be:
 * 1) Christological Heresies - elite arguments about the nature of Christ and, by extension, the cosmos. largely snuffed out around 7th century
 * 2) Arianism
 * 3) Nestorianism
 * 4) Manicheanism
 * 5) Bogomilism
 * 6) Institutional Heresies - elite controversies that were part of the Catholic Church's institutionalization
 * 7) Donatism
 * 8) Eucharistic Heresies
 * 9) Spiritual Franciscans
 * 10) Popular Heresies - popular beliefs about what the Church should be (i.e., poor) and whom it should include (often crops up in regions as a reaction to encroaching Church control) sometimes taken up by elites
 * 11) Henry of Lausanne
 * 12) Tanchelm
 * 13) Arnold of Brescia
 * 14) Catharism
 * 15) Textual Heresies - undermine the power of the clergy by allowing translation and interpretation of scripture
 * 16) Lollards
 * 17) Hussites
 * 18) Vestigial Paganism - popular practices that continued, unbeknownst to the authorities, in popular worship (like the worship of st. Guinefort, the holy dog)

This is a draft. Comments and criticisms?brandon cohen 23:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restructured the "List of heresies" section according to the above schema. --Richard 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A question for those more knowledgeable than I - wasn't Catharism fundamentally cosmological rather than just about the Church and its membership? It would not imply any controversial claim about a historical connection to Manicheanism or Bogomilism to put it in the same category purely on the grounds of its views on the nature of the world and its creator.  It would rather break the 7th-century barrier though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.122.5  (talk • contribs).

Lead changes
First, let me say some problems I have with the lead revisions. The lead now says that the first “comprehensive statement of belief” was the Nicene creed. This is problematic. The creed developed from baptismal professions in general, and an older Jerusalem creed in particular. The statement ignores this. Also, creeds, and credal hymns, actually form the oldest material of the New Testament, having been incorporated by St. Paul. Second, the paragraph makes it sound as if orthodoxy did not develop until Nicaea, which ignores the authoritative role of the apostles and early bishops, seen in the New Testament writings and Apostolic Fathers. Lastly, the paragraph makes orthodoxy sound simply reactionary, as if it formed (by a process of “self-definition”?) over differences that then became heresy. Now, I think we need to really improve the article, but this first step needs to be done better, in my view. Lostcaesar 10:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, there is no lead. What happened? Can we simply restore the old lead and keep the etymology section after the lead? -Andrew c 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Orthodox doctrines are formulated positively, as ideas and beliefs change (think about the discussions about the divinity/humanity of Jesus), but they also include references to beliefs that are considered heretical, to explain why they are mistaken (the Council of Nicea was convened specifically to determine which branch of Christianity was going to be institutionalized--Arianism or what became Chalcedonianism). I consider this to be a process of self-definition (positively or negatively) through reaction to contemporary beliefs and political issues. brandon cohen 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the difficulty in phrasing the lead is to find a description of heresy that will describe a 2000 year long historical process driven by myriad impulses. I think that taking a dry social science tone which discusses these topics in terms of institutional acceptance or rejection of proposed doctrine will avoid bias because it does not presuppose one to be correct. brandon cohen 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Early Christian heresies
The following is copied here from my Talk Page--Richard 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * re: bible passages noted on Christian heresy, I argue that there must be a better place to put the information. The article seems to conflate too many issues--theological, sociological, political, interpretive, etc. And these are sentence fragments.


 * "Though Christ himself is noted to have spoken out against false prophets and false christs within the Gospels themselves Mark 13:22 (some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples), Matthew 7:5-20, Matthew 24:4, Matthew 24:11 Matthew 24:24 (For false christs and false prophets will arise). On many occasions in Paul's epistles, he defends his own apostleship, and urges Christians in various places to beware of false teachers, or of anything contrary to what was handed to them by him. The epistles of John and Jude also warn of false teachers and prophets, as does the writer of the Book of Revelation and 1 Jn. 4:1, as did the Apostle Peter warn in 2 Pt. 2:1-3:."


 * How would you clean this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandon cohen (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes Mister Cohen the above addition was carried over to the article body by Richard from an edit war I was having with Andrew c on the Early Christianity article. You seem to wish to establish a relativist tone with heresy as if the term is purely subjective please clarify. LoveMonkey 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't heresy and orthodoxy inherently subjective labels assigned by an institution? The passages, above, as quoted from the gospel, show that even though Jesus spoke out against false apostles, he didn't provide much guidance about clerical celibacy, payment for ecclesiastical office, a Christian way to live in a moneyed world, how to recognize saints, etc. These are all issues that became important over the two millennia of the religious institution's development. I object to leading this article with words from the gospel because that information--while factual--misrepresents the reality of Christian heresy, which was not anti-Jesus or anti-Christian. I suggest that we move the gospel quotes to a subsection near the bottom, and present it as "doctrinal justification for heresy" or something similar. Is that clearer, LM? brandon cohen 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Brandon. The Biblical passages are better for explaining WHY the orthodox consider unorthodox teachings to be heretical and WHY they treat heresy as they do.  It is unencyclopedic to use the Bible as a source except when it is explaining the basis for religious doctrine (i.e. scripture is the source for belief and doctrine not the basis for fact).  It's a fine line but it's an important one to draw.
 * --Richard 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As a result of discussions on another article, I've changed my mind about what I wrote above. I think it is a bad idea to quote scripture as the sole support for religious doctrine because, unless that scripture is incontrovertibly unambiguous and not subject to multiple interpretations, doing so amounts to original research.  It is far better to quote a secondary source and thus we would say something like "Prominent scholar P asserts that, according to Matthew X:Y, heresy should be punished and this is the doctrine of the ABC church".  Doing things this way allows us to describe different doctrines related to history held by different churches or even the same church at different points in time.
 * --Richard 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnosticism and Marcionism sections getting too long
The current article is 39kb long. That's not too long but we cannot afford to have long sections on each heresy mentioned. I'm not sure why Gnosticism, Marcionism and Montanism have sections in this article. I think it's a historical artifact of text that I copied here from some other article (perhaps Heresy, perhaps History of Christianity.

In any event, detailed discussion of each heresy should be placed in the article on that heresy (e.g. Gnosticism, Marcionism or Montanism). This article should limit itself to one paragraph summaries of each heresy.

--Richard 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of heresies
Can someone add specific sourced facts about the bad things that are implied. LoveMonkey 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you be more explicit about what "bad things" are implied? --Richard 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Priscillian of Avila
I'm kind of new to the fray here at Wikipedia and am loath to begin editing right away, but the section under "Suppression" about P of A is not strictly speaking accurate. P was accused of being a Manichaean, but the actual charge for which he was executed was witchcraft. If you need a reference, Malcolm Lambert's "Medieval Heresy" has it on page 12. Lexikonoklast 05:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Lexikonoklast

Question on the Categorization of Heresies
Why are the mormons, Christadelphians, and Jehovas witnessess listed under "Controversial groups"? None of these religions can adhere to the historic Christian creeds (Nicene, Apostle's, Athanasian, etc), and that alone classifies them as heretical. Why, then, are they classified as being "controversial"? It reeks of "political correctness" to me (i.e., Mormons, Jehovas Witnessess, etc., like to claim that they're Christians, so we'll water down reality to make them happy). MattH1517 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia, we follow the "neutral point of view" or WP:NPOV, which is basically a form of "political correctness". We allow all notable views to be presented in articles. Because Mormons and JW are notable groups who self-identify as Christian, we must respect that. On the other hand, if we have notable sources that say things like "Catholics hold that the Mormon belief in X is heretic" we can do that, as long as we make sure the content is verifiable (we do that by attributing the text to reliable sources). Conversely, we can also state beliefs that Mormons/JW view as heretical as well, if we have sources. So, please read through some of the links that I left you on your talk page that cover these concepts. Without qualification, and without a reliable source, we simply cannot call these contemporary sects heretical. -Andrew c [talk] 23:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. But what about the fact that Mormons/Jehova's witnesses hold to doctrines which are identical to some of those already classified as heretical on the CH page (Both Mormons and JWs deny that Christ is one with God the Father, and that He is deity)? I understand the need for sources... but are we never allowed to use reasoning of our own? (e.g., group 1 believes X. X is established as heretical. Group two believes X and Y. Y isn't heretical, but X is. Therefore group 2 is heretical) MattH1517 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we are not allowed to user reasoning of our own. This is called original research on wikipedia, and is forbidden (see WP:NOR). Wikipedia cannot publish original concepts. We'd need a source that specifically states that group 2 is heretical. And even then, we couldn't say "Group 2 is heretical" and cite the source. We'd need to qualify who believes that group 2 is heretical, and considering a citing a source from group 2 that responds to such criticism.-Andrew c [talk] 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who may be considered by another as a heretic is likely to consider themselves as orthodox and the other as heretic. So does Wikipedia then forbear from any entry on Heresy inasmuch as someone, somewhere may disagree? If this would be the operating policy for reference works then there would never ever be an entry on Heresy in any encyclopedia. Yet if one examines the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Encyclopedia of Religion, and the New Catholic Encyclopedia, cited by Wikipedia articles, one finds that Heresy is indeed a topic which can be defined.While I agree that labeling contemporary religious movements as heretical would betray a desired neutrality, it is not so difficult to reiterate what ages past have generally accepted as heresies. The Cathars, for example, were a noble people but in the context of the times when the Church Universal was governed from Rome, it is historically accurate to identify Catharism as a heresy. LAWinans (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd heresy
I remember reading a faith column in The Indianapolis Star that listed a bunch of heresies. One of those heresies had the notion that Jesus did not have have bowel movements. Which one is this? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Making the list of heresies more than a list
I've started work on taking explanatory sentences from each of the articles linked in the list of heresies. My hope is that this will make this article much more readable and make it easier for people do know why they'd dig deeper on any particular group. I'm out of time for tonight but I'll try to come back to this tomorrow to finish it off. If someone else wants to finish the job: awesome.

Lot49a (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Priscillian and burning
This article says that Prisclllian was burnt alive; the article on Priscillian says he was beheaded.

The section on th punishment of heretics seems to reflects the practice of the Spanish Inquisition (after 1478). It needs expansion or a link on the history of persecution from the first mediaeval cases at Orleans in 1022 and the Synod of Verona in 1184. Were any heretics burnt in the late Roman and Byzantine empires?

--JamesWim (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed
I added a whole bunch of cite tags to the article. At the moment I don't have the energy to hunt down and verify everything myself, but I thought I couldn't let it pass without at least marking some of the more problematic sentences. I started out marking the Protestant section, finished that, moved on, and soon discovered that I'd be citing nearly every sentence in the entire thing if I did it to every assertion without a direct reference. So I just cited some of the more contentious or easily checkable ones. joye (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Split the article?
It occurs to me that some of the POV disputes might be averted if we took the list as it is now out, and replaced it with links to pages like "List of heresies defined by the Catholic Church" and so on. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is monophysite in its beliefs, so certainly it does not consider monophysitism heretical.

As far as the Catholic Church goes, heresies are usually quite rigidly and clearly defined, which makes our job easy as Wikipedia editors to just cite and move on, compared to the murky waters of trying to say what Protestantism as a whole considers heresy. In fact I'd argue that it's impossible to say that something is a heresy according to Protestantism; only a heresy to certain individual Protestants or Protestant groups. That's the part that's going to be most difficult. joye (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be more comprehensive if we had a page that was "list of Christian beliefs defined as heresies". That way we could include, in sections, all beliefs that have been formally labelled as heresies by the various churches.  And you make a good point about Protestantism -- while the term may be used in rhetoric, it is not formally used by the various Protestant churches.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 10:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would help to move the naming and description of specific heresies into articles which are lists. I would take the proposal one step further.  First, let us have an article titled List of Christian heresies in which the heresies are listed alphabetically and each entry indicates which branches/denominations consider that belief to be a heresy.  Then, we can add a series of articles along the lines of List of Catholic heresies and List of Orthodox heresies.  I'm not quite sure what to do with the Protestants.  Once we do this, this article can be trimmed down to talking about heresies in general without getting into detail about specific heresies.
 * --Richard (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've created List of Christian heresies. I suspect we will want to change the format and content of this article quite a bit.  In particular, I think a table will help but I figured we should get it started and then work on modifying it in an evolutionary and collaborative way.  --Richard (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation failure
Section Denominations says:
 * Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into five main groupings: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Restorationism.[3][4]

Sorry to say the citations doesn't support the subdivisions at all. Source "[3]" [http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/Rel232/resource/Xiandivision.htm "Divisions of Christianity". North Virginia College], says:


 * Christianity may be broadly represented as being divided into three main groupings: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, which is in its turn subdivided into: Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinist/Reformed churches, Sectarian churches,


 * (not a citation, just picking the section headings of the text)

I personally would reject the concept "Sectarian churches" as making a category of the wastebasket, but I'm very pleased as a Lutheran to be sitting in a different basket than the Calvinist/Reformed churches for the astronomical differences in soteriology.

The second source "[4]" religioustolerance.org is partially irrelevant, partially falsifying this article's subdivision again: it describes how Latter Day Saints ("Mormons"), which are bunched together with other unrelated Jesusites, are generally not regarded as Christians by (other?) Christians. Iff such a subdivision as "restorationism" would be valid, then the source [4] falsifies that restorationism belongs to the listing. Now, instead, I claim that using a term such as "restorationism" is making the wastebasket a species: "have you seen any Incertae sedis flying by lately?" ... said: Rursus (bork²) 04:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing
I am removing the section titled "Second millenium" because both its premise is erroneous. As the editor noted above, Restorationism is not a major branch among Christianity. The Churches of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Churches are historically rooted in the Restoration Movement, also known as the Stone-Campbell Movement. None of these churches are considered heretical, and the more conservative members of these churches are Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians. Dispensationalism doesn't have anything to do with restorationism, its mention seems out of the blue. And both the Latter-day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered heretical because they are restorationists. Lamorak (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bible
Departing from the Faith as described in the Word of God is the best description for heresy you must look to the root word heresy in the greek to get a good picture of what is being implied when the apostle is using this term the problem arises when we attempt to reinterpret what is being said here in its proper context Lead quote: "Christian heresy refers to non-orthodox practices and beliefs that were deemed to be heretical by one or more of the Christian churches." The Catholic Church derives claims of heresy from a system of dogma while Protestants view the Bible as authoratative, with such passages as found in Acts 24:1-14 (also, 1 Cor.11:19; Gal.5:20; 2 Pet.2:1). Acts 24:14 "heresy" is changed in the modern NIV to "sect". The passage is about Paul being accused of belonging to the Nazarene sect, which the priest and Jews called a heresy. Paul replies in v.14 "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.187.120 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent point. The authority of Christianity must come from Word of God rather than the word of man.  Therefore, the Bible is the correct standard for definitions regarding Christianity.  However, it is recognized that Wikipedia does not recognize authority, and therefore bases its published writings on consensus.  We do well to remember that. - KitchM (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Heresy or Schism?
There seems to be a confusion here between heresy and schism.

A heresy is a disagreement about a matter of faith. A schism is a disagreement about the organisation of the church.

For example, the Donatists. Their disagreement with the church was over the legitimacy of bishops who had committed apostasy under persecution.

Admittedly there are significant grey areas in most cases.

115.187.248.212 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To what "church" are you referring? - KitchM (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Islam
Why is Islam mentioned in the section about Modern Catholic response to Protestantism? It is not relevant to that section and should be moved.

A separate section on Islam could be added if desired. Why does the sentence say Belloc EVEN defined Islam as a Christian heresy (my emphasis on even) as if this is an incredible thing to say. Mohammed initially learned about Christianity from the Elchasaites and Islam includes many of their beliefs so it is very arguable that Islam IS the development of a Christian heresy. See the book ISLAM IN ITS ARABIAN CONTEXT by François de Blois, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London on how the Elchasaite heresy became incorporated into Islam.

115.187.248.212 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "Belloc EVEN defined Islam" is a kind of pointy subjectivity, "look here: this angry guy even regards Islam as a heresy." Or some such... (pondering) ... It is interesting, though. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglicans
The picture of the different Christian denominations needs to be updated to account for the Anglican Ordinariate that Pope Benedict XVI has set up for Anglicans who desire to become a part of the Roman Catholic Church. The wikipedia article on this is located here.

Numbers executed for heresy.
The article suggests that the numbers executed for heresy may be in the thousands; if we include the victims of the inquisition and witches, who were considered heretics, the number certainly is in the tens of thousands.Jim Lacey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In actuality, that would be in the millions. - KitchM (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bold Edit
The article needs a great deal of work done on it. There are a large number of unsupported statements some of which are questionable. I have tried to set the ball rolling in a positive way by rewriting the first paragraph of the lead section. In its previous form it required the use of links to two other articles to be intelligible. There are still a large number of adjustments to the later parts of the article to make it coherent overall. One problem to be faced is the diffuse nature of the material included. How much, if any, of the long section on denominations is relevant here? The same question might be asked about the details of ecumenical councils. Jpacobb (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Extra information
Editor2020 and I are in consensus that the description of Christianity should be a separate article from Heresy in Christianity. Federales, please discuss why you disagree. (Thereandnot (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Your disruptive edit has been reverted per WP:BRD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOBLANKING. Also, be advised that section blanking is often considered a form of vandalism.
 * Your argument here is a straw man and has no merit. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles describing various aspects of Christianity, and this happens to be one of them.  As I stated quite clearly in my original edit summary, a discussion of Christian denominations is both useful and appropriate to this article on Christian heresy.  The content of the section may or may not need improvement, but blanking the entire section because it is purportedly "off topic" does not improve the article and there is no consensus for such a change at this time. Federales (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the original edit was not made by me but another editor. I agreed with the edit.
 * Second, wikipedia does have many articles and everything has a place. Discussion of extra stuff that does not belong in the article further waters it down. The article is about Heresy in Christianity, not about branches of Christianity. Thereandnot (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Has it not occurred to you that some of the various branches are considered heretical by others? Federales (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Has it occured to you that there is an article called  Christian Denomination? (Thereandnot (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for the support Thereandnot, but Federales is correct here. I Boldly made a change, he Reverted it, and now it is time to Discuss it. Everyone please assume Good Faith. Editor2020 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Federales, what is your primary concern here? Do you feel that the removed section shouldn't have been removed, or that it is not off-topic? Editor2020 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both. I think a discussion of Christian denominations is absolutely crucial to the topic of Christian heresy.  The section needs improvement, to be sure.  But the article cannot be considered complete without some treatment of the sub-topic. Federales (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Federales, but explaining the denominations is not necessarily the best way to do it. Can you please clean up(you can even expand) the section on denominations by making it more relevant to heresy. Specifically can you please define the nature of relations between the branches and why they consider each other heretical? Thereandnot (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely what do you agree with? Federales (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a section explaining why denominations consider other ones heretical can be included. However, that is not what is currently written. (Thereandnot (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Actually, it just so happens to be precisely what the current section explains. Federales (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It explains the denominations and does not explain why they consider each other heretical. There is a separate article on wikipedia explaining denominations for which this information is more appropriate. (Thereandnot (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC))

I have to assume at this point that you haven't actually read the section. Federales (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That might not be assuming good faith. Thereandnot (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. But if you have read it, then what's your explanation for not knowing what it says?  Is this a WP:CIR issue, perhaps?  Federales (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not assuming good faith? Thereandnot (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to have the record show that Federales is refusing to communicate here or discuss the merits of the argument. He has not assumed good faith, has made no defense of his position, except stating that other editors are incompetent. Thereandnot (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is there to defend? You are simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with the section under discussion.  If you're going to argue with yourself, leave me out of it.  Figure out your own position and let me know when you've decided, m-kay?  Federales (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As of right now the section on denomination is irrelevant to heresy because it describes schisms(hence belong on a different article). It should be removed and was rightfully removed. You are 1)refusing to rewrite the section to make it more relevant to heresy 2) refusing to remove it.  3)refusing to explain why schisms are the same thing as heresy(the only possible justification for leaving the article as is). Thereandnot (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done moving the goalposts. Federales (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again you produce non-constructive dialogue. Fix the section or explain why a schism is a heresy. Thereandnot (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that anybody is required to fix the section to your satisfaction? The relevance has already been explained to you and no less than 3 other editors have endorsed the existence of the section within the article. Federales (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have produced nothing to back up why denominations are not schisms and are heresies. Thereandnot (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been beating up that straw man for 3 days now. Is he still breathing?  The explanation has already been provided: "... a discussion of Christian denominations is absolutely crucial to the topic of Christian heresy." There it is, now it's up to you to "get it".  Or not.  Federales (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone who hasn't been completely following this discussion, I apologize if I am missing something obvious, but it seems clear to me that denominations are created from schisms (using a neutral meaning of the term, the division of an existing denomination), and often these schisms occur because one or both parties believe the other to be heretical. So, of article on heresy will mention denominations. Denominations often exist because of the concept of heresy. --JFH (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally, someone who wants to have a productive dialogue! I agree that a section explaining how denominations consider other denominations heretical is appropriate for this section. There is another article on wikipedia dedicated to explaining denominations. Jfhutson, do you think the current version of denominations best explains how branches consider others branches heretical? Thereandnot (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. My quick read of the discussion made me think this was about whether it was pertinent at all. The first para. of the section in question is not pertinent (a definition of denomination is unnecessary, just use a redlink). The other three could be refined to be more pertinent, but are unsourced anyway. I support deletion of the section and would encourage anyone who would like to write on the topic of the relation of the topic of denominationalism to the concept of heresy to find some sources. No one who objects to the content has an obligation to replace it with sourced content (WP:V). --JFH (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

First, we need take a look at this article - Christian heresy in the modern era - which contains a voluminous amount of material about alleged heresies within well-known Christian denominations. At first glance, it appears that the hatnote in the Denominations section of this article should actually point to that one, and in turn that article should be used to populate the summary section here. Federales (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's stay on topic and resolve the issue of the existing material first. Do you agree it should be removed? Adding a WP:SS for the article you mentioned seems like a no-brainer, but I would think the heading would be "Modern heresy" or something. --JFH (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree the section should be removed. I think it needs to be refined and refocused. Federales (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, well please address WP:V. The only sourced part of the section is off-topic. Per WP:V, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I see you have mentioned WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOBLANKING, but both of those have exeptions for content which violates core content policies, among which is WP:V. I agree that it would be preferable to have good, sourced material in place of what is there, but it is more important that we follow WP:V and remove the unsourced material. At any time after it is removed, it may be added again with sources. --JFH (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is very reasonable and I agree with JFH: this section needs to be geared more towards heresy & verified or it should be removed.Thereandnot (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ecumenical councils
This section is rather confusing about the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is a link to a disambig page. The first reference (final item in the list) seems to mean the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), which reinstated Photius, but there's no mention of the earlier Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) which had deposed him. And the paragraph after the list treats them as this they were really one Council at two times. Could someone with expert knowledge disentangle this section? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)