Talk:List of heresies in the Catholic Church

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deep edit[edit]

This list needs a deep edition work:

  1. It lacks sources. Only doctrines addressed and considered heretical by Roman Catholic magisterium should be here.
  2. It confuses different movements. Luciferian (satanism) is distinct from Luciferian (Sardinian schismatics)
  3. Texts too long in the table. Whosoever wants more information can already click into the links, there is no need for essays in a list.

--Brighella11 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did Brighella11 talk mean to say 'deep edit' (or did s/he really intend to say 'deep edition')?
  • Years ago, an ethnically-German beer-drinking philosopher of science who taught philosophy of religion because he was a lifelong Lutheran told me that one era's heresy is another era's orthodoxy. I'm not clear on to what extent I COULD agree with that, but I don't think it's a very large percentage. But an article like this one (on list of Christian heresies) begins with countless unstated commitments of heart and mind. While that's found in many Wikipedia articles, it's highly uncharacteristic of what Wikipedians would want to publicly claim about how articles should be constructed and developed. See the discussion of Sedevacantism to ask whether or not one era's orthodoxy is another era's heresy - in the specific case of that one issue. MaynardClark (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for additions[edit]

A few others to ponder :

ADM (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Petrobrusians and Henricians. Oh, and Beguines. Amalricians too? And the Brethren of the Free Spirit? Even if their derived or influenced forms of heretical movements, in a listing they should appear at least as basis for extending research in the topic. Even if appearing in a category as "alleged", "minor" or something like it. The purpose of a listing of heresies that doesn't help to reach articles about heresies is somewhat questionable. Don't remove items based on some criteria, explain the criteria and create a sub-listing. Ed.capistrano (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything connected with the Latter Rain Movement, the Kansas City Prophets, the Toronto Blessing, Rodney Howard Browne, and the animal-like behavior in pentecostal and charismatic churches suffering from strong delusion for seeking after every new wind of doctrine.
Oneness Pentecostals.
The Neocatecuminal Way, which is closed door sect within the Roman Catholic Church with cult-like and arbitrary actions of catechists - there's no accountability. It's presented as the adult formation of faith, but bypasses the established Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults within the Roman Catholic tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.161.87 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (moved to end of section by Jpacobb (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
There has been discussion as to whether any sort of section on modern (contemporary) heresies can be justified. To retain NPOV I think there must be some clear official declaration by a competent authority and I would be prepared to consider separating the modern/contemporary "heresies" into a separate list. Jpacobb (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essence-Energies distinction is not heresy in the Catholic church, in fact Eastern Catholics (Melkites and Ukrainians) believe in this distinction, and John Paul II had no problem with Palamism. (See the article about Gregory Palamas for more details.)(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Liberation theology[edit]

Great... thanks. I was thinking about whether Liberation theology was a heresy or not. Here's the problem that I'm having with this entire article. I think everyone can agree that Arianism was a heresy. It was declared to be such and so that's that. Some of the other theologies/ideologies that you mention may be heresies from your point of view or my point of view but how can we know who exactly considers it to be a heresy? By this I mean, has the Pope explicitly labeled liberation theology to be a heresy or has he just attacked it without labeling it a heresy. Is a Pope's opinion enough? I mean Arianism was anathematized by an ecumenical council. That's the Good Housekeeping Seal of heresy in any one's book. What do we do with heresies that haven't been declared as such by a council?

I have other problems with this article that I need help on. See below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are mainly the Magisterium and Church history. The Holy Scriptures were for the most part written by members of the Church, so they can never really contravene it. A Council which condemns a heresy is part of the collective decisions of the Church. From this point of view, private judgement (i.e. individualism) is not sufficient to determine heresy, since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The sensus fidelium or (sense of faith) of the laity is often a good indicator. Even ecclesial communities that are separate from the teaching authority can sometimes share common doctrine which dates back from when they were united. Also, every Bishop has a magisterium of his own, to the extent that this magisterium is taught in collegiality with the broad Church, the petrine office having a special degree of authority in teaching matters. ADM (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that was of little help. For the purposes of this article, how can we say that X is unequivocally a heresy? What is the rule that we establish for saying that X is a heresy? I would say that it has to be branded as such by either a council or a Pope or a leading proponent has to be sanctioned as a heretic (in the old days, the sanction was execution; these days, it's not so drastic). Remember that this is Wikipedia and we have to conform to WP:RS and WP:V.
If we read what the Wikipedia article on Liberation theology says, it is unclear to me whether or not liberation theology is a heresy. (Actually, based on the Wikipedia article, I'm leaning towards saying that it is not a heresy per se but certain elements, certain strands and certain tendencies could lead some individuals into heresy.) So should we include it in this article or not? I would say not.
From the Wikipedia article on Liberation theology
Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church.[3] At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. ... it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth).[citation needed]
The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has long been known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).[4]
If we adopt the rule that I have proposed, then I am not sure that the items on your list qualify under this rule. For that matter, some of the entries that are currently in the article might not qualify.
--Richard (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, my view on Liberation theology is based on the Chalcedonian Creed : if Jesus is truly God and truly man, how can he be a kind of communist rebel ? A rebel against God, against Himself ? It is really a question of christology, on what the Christ really is, and very often christology is at the heart of heresy-hunting, on telling the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. ADM (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could go on for quite a while debating your view of liberation theology vs. mine but you are missing my point. What you think doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Neither does it matter what I think. When I say that I am leaning against counting it as a heresy, I say that not based on my personal evaluation of its orthodoxy or heterodoxy. I say it because it appears from the Wikipedia article that neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI actually called it a heresy although they have opposed some elements of it. As the Wikipedia article says "Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Catholic Church." and "The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has long been known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Cardinal Ratzinger did praise the theology's intellectual underpinnings that reject violence, and, instead, "[stress] the responsibility which Christians necessarily bear for the poor and oppressed". Now on the other side, people have been excommunicated for teaching it and teaching it is banned. That starts to smell like a heresy to me.
So... is liberation theology a heresy? I'd say "close but not quite". But I'm open to being educated. Just don't make an argument based on OR. Show me the sources.
--Richard (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to call Liberation Theology a heresy, we need to find a WP:RS that calls it that. And, in this particular context, we really need an authoritative source that speaks on behalf of the Catholic Church (which is why I am leery of using the pronouncement of just one bishop and would prefer a papal or conciliar pronouncement). --Richard (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found sources that point to Cardinal Ratzinger calling it a singular heresy. Also, the CELAM has bishops appointed by John Paul II that share these views [1] ADM (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great... That does it for me. Thanx. --Richard (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Appleby, R. Scott (1995), Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America, Indiana University Press, p. 257, ISBN 978-0-253-32922-6.
  2. ^ Marty, Martin E; Appleby, R. Scott (1994), Fundamentalisms Observed, University of Chicago Press, p. 88, ISBN 978-0-226-50878-8.
  3. ^ Liberation Theology General Information
  4. ^ INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE "THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Organizational scheme for this article[edit]

So far, I have stuck pretty closely to the original organizational scheme that was in place when this list was in the Christian heresy article. I think it is inadequate because the number of entries in some sections is pretty large. Also, the Gnostic and Christological sections overlap big time. Can anybody suggest ways to improve on this? --Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on reconceptualizing the framework of the article.
How about merely listing the specifically theological controversies within Christendom? Then one could organize the hotly-debated theological controversies by type, with one or more 'Main Article' pages for each of the heated discussions. MaynardClark (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restorationism as a heresy[edit]

As I mentioned to ADM above, there's a problem because we don't use the word heresy as much these days and, with very few ecumenical councils, it's hard to draw a line and say "This is officially considered a heresy". The most obvious cases of this problem are Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses. Pretty obvious to me that these are considered heretical by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations. But, are there reliables sources that say this? --Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, if Churches have made official statements on the matter for example. I think however that 99 % of Church bodies are against Restorationism, mainly because it is closely related to Arianism, which was condemned at the Council of Nicea. ADM (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that just about all Christian denominations oppose Restorationism. However, where I need help is in finding the official pronouncements. --Richard (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heresies vs. heretics[edit]

Arius was a heretic. Arianism is a heresy. Same with Montanus and Montanism. Hus/Hussites. These are clearly notable heresies.

But how about Henry of Lausanne and the "Henricians"? Arnold of Brescia and the "Arnoldists"? Where do we draw the line in considering a heresy to be worth including in this list?

Why do we not have Savonarola and Giordano Bruno in the list? Was Galileo a heretic?

Is the scope of this article just notable heresies or does it include notable heretics? I worry that, if we include all notable heretics, this article will explode in size.

I propose to remove Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia.

--Richard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Medium is the Message (cf Marshall McLuhan). Leonardo Boff is responsible for Liberation theology, but we don't call it Boffism. It really depends on what is said, and what the Church actually teaches, so it can be both, on one hand with a heresy named after a person (e.g. Arius), and on the other a heresy which is closer to a philosophical system (e.g. modernism). ADM (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss my point. I'm not quite so concerned in what a heresy is called. I'm saying that some heresies live and die based on the life of one heretic. Consider Girolamo Savonarola. He had a short-lived following in Florence but there was no heresy called Savonarolism. Should we add Savonarola to this article or take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia? I say we should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia but I'd like to see if others agree. --Richard (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Savonarola has been accused of clericalism and authoritarianism [2] : he started out as a liberal advocate for the poor, but ended up as a kind of theocratic dictator. Cardinal Trujillo, who was a high-ranking leader in the Church, was comparing Liberation theology to Savonarola, and also to Communist dictatorships. ADM (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... we have crossed over from one issue (should Savonarola be included in this article) to another (is Liberation Theology a heresy?). And there remain the questions: should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia? I would be inclined to should take out Henry of Lausanne and Arnold of Brescia and put Girolamo Savonarola in. --Richard (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly part of same category of heresy, so I would only put one of them up (say the Fraticelli), and say it is the poverty heresy. The others belong to the same category of thought. And of course, the refutation to this heresy is to say that Body of Christ is not always naked, that the people fo God are not always naked and poor like Adam and Eve, that currently we can't technically all be crucified at the same time, nor can we go back to the garden of Eden. ADM (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic heresies vs. Christian heresies[edit]

The title of this article is List of Christian heresies. User:ADM has suggested a list of additions, some of which are heresies (e.g. Liberation Theology and Americanism) from the POV of the Catholic Church. The pre-Chalcedon heresies are pretty much considered heresies by all of Christianity. Protestantism is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church but obviously not by Protestants.

How do we inform the reader which of the entries in this article are considered heresies by only some churches?

--Richard (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants don't exactly have a Magisterium, a least not on paper, so it's very difficult for them to determine what is heresy and what is not. The only thing they have is concerted pluralism and formal adherence to the five solas, and whatever they interpret Jesus as saying though their own private judgement. We see how problematic this is in the Anglican communion, which is bitterly divided over feminist theology and queer theology.
I would focus first on special sections on the Catholic Church, then on the Orthodox Church, then on some of the more centralized Protestant groups like the Southern Baptist Convention. These groups have made many statements and decisions on orthodoxy, while others have not. That includes about 75 % of all Christians, which is pretty clear-cut, since these principal church bodies agree on a great deal of issues.
Another thing is that heresy is different from schism, in that while most schismatics are heretical, some are not ; on the other hand, some heretics will always refuse schism, regardless of their obvious dissenting views. ADM (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And so how is sedevacantism a heresy? Why is it not simply a schism? --Richard (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a schism per se, but see the official 1993 Catechism and you'll see why it is a kind of heresy to say that Peter is no longer Pope. The Catechism is a very good source for telling what a heresy is. ADM (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we need a citation to a reliable source that calls it a heresy or else we are susceptible to a charge of original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)
The reason that we can't use the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that is a primary source so unless it explicitly mentions a heresy and labels it as such, we need a secondary source that interprets the Catechism to label something a heresy. --Richard (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protestantism[edit]

I hesitated to add the section on the Reformation and include Protestantism as a heresy although it's clear that the Catholics and perhaps the Orthodox consider it to be a heresy.

Part of the hesitation is the concern that labelling Protestantism as a heresy would be considered POV by Protestants. Sorry, this isn't meant as a POV attack. It's simply true that the Catholics and Orthodox consider it a heresy. Their opinion, not mine.

Of course, Protestantism is one of the most widespread, widely accepted heresies. Even the Catholic Church doesn't really use "heresy" or "heretic" to refer to Protestantism these days.

Now my other concern with this section is the inclusion of Hyper-calvinism. Why just this one entry? In truth, all forms of Protestantism are heresies. Why not add Calvinism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptist, Methodist? Well, that might be overkill as the section would grow long as we tried to add every kind of Protestantism under the sun (and there are many).

I would like to know what other editors think about these questions.

--Richard (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Protestant heresies concern divine grace and original sin. I would create a special section on grace within the article and re-read the statements made at the Council of Trent. If you look at the actual declarations and definitions of Trent, you get a good idea of what we are talking about when we speak of heresies within Protestantism. Another good source on this is Exsurge Domine, which condemns a large number of heretical propositions made by Luther and his followers. ADM (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also things considered heresies by other protestants as well: such as Pentecostalism and Prosperity theology. Those who hold to Believer's baptism consider Infant baptism a heresy and vice versa. Xandar 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we want to add a section documenting what heresies the Protestants see in the Catholic Church, this section should be removed. It is completely inappropriate to use this page as a platform for Catholic sectarianism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach82 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to monitor[edit]

Certain modern Christians (mostly Baptists, see Landmark Baptist - for one) support a fanciful narritave that connects a series of ancient and mideveal people and sects in an to attempt to claim that any number of modern Christian sects have ancient histories that stretch back to the time of the apostles. It runs something along the lines of St Paul to Novationists to Donatists to Paulicianists to Claudius of Turin to Petrobucians to Henricians to Cathars to Waldenses to Wycliff and Huss to Anabaptists to Modern Baptists. That skips quite a bit, but you get the picture. It was pushed hard in the 19th century and it is pure fiction. It does not even stand up to even the slightest examination and the only pieces of "evidence" that ever backed it up whotsoever were found to be Victorian era forgeries. I cleared most of this nonsense out of Wikipedia quietly two years ago, but some editors, mostly IPs try to slip this back into the ecyclopedia from time to time. The Waldensian article is one of the few I monitor, as there are legit modern Waldensians and they have made it clear they do not support this belief about their sect's origin. I worry less about the Cathars, Paulicianists, etc. as they are confined to the history books. Please, any help to keep an eye out for this nonsense would be a good thing. -- Secisek (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Column[edit]

Perhaps an additional column (or section within the fourth column could indicate WHo considers it heretical? eg Mainstream Nicean Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists etc. Xandar 10:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy?[edit]

Now, which of these listed denominations is the one and only true christianity to which we Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics and Orthodox are heretics? Shouldn't the title of the article have "sects" instead of "heresies"? After all: God knows whome of us are right in what way. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why is Heliocentrism and Antinomianism classified as "Christian" "heresies"?
Antinomianism is a term, not a religious movement,
Heliocentrism says nothing about religion at all, and the "movement" was a small bundle of ideas that spread over the borders of denominations, it was not associated to any specific religious doctrine.
Mysteriously pondering. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another oddity: why is Calvinism on the same level as Protestantism? It should be on the same level as Lutheranism under Protestantism, since it is generally considered a form of Protestantism. I'm more and more mystified, is the article new? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article new?[edit]

Rursus asks if this article is new. Yes, it is "new/old". I created it in January of this year by extracting text from Christian heresy which had been there for probably a couple of years before. This is the first revision of the article. I expanded the article by adding descriptions to many of the heresies and converting the list into a table format to better organize the expanded descriptions.

I am the primary author although much of the text has been cut-and-pasted from the articles on each heresy and other people have helped.

I'm open to adding, modifying or deleting information. Some of the points in the section titled "Heresy?" above are worth discussing. I don't have time right now but I'll try to get back to it soon.

--Richard (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV citation[edit]

I have cited the Protestantism section for lacking a NPOV. As I said in the edit summary, Protestantism is not a mere fringe movement in Christianity, and this page should not be used to peddle the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. More suitable for this sort of thing would be a short section discussing disagreements between current Christian sects and how this often leads to accusations of heresy. The list could include only historical or fringe movements in the history of Christianity. Merely adding a section citing the Roman Catholic Church would be silly. Zach82 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV title?[edit]

The article seems to have been moved by User:Carlaude without any discussion. Now Carlaude may be bias since she/he is a Protestant heretic in religious disposition. The article title "heresies in Catholicism" negates the fact that the Orthodox consider these as heresies as well. The only people who don't are the so-called "Judeo-Christian" Protestants. - 90.212.77.135 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, of course, is that different groups consider different beliefs to be heresies. There are some beliefs that are generally considered heresies by just about all Christians. There are other beliefs that are considered acceptable teaching by Protestants and unacceptable by Catholics and Orthodox. The reverse is also true. There are some beliefs that are considered orthodox doctrine by Orthodox and/or Catholics but heresies by Protestants. This article could be renamed back to List of Christian heresies but might benefit from an explanation of the foregoing points. --Richard S (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the title History of heresy in Christianity? --Richard S (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To rename this article "List of Christian heresies" whould indicate that-- for example-- Protestantism is considered heresy by Christianity in general. As such it would be more than just POV, but it would also be POV. It would tantamount to Wikipedia endorsing Catholism and Eastern Orthodoxy as the only valid form(s) of Christianity. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested History of heresy in Christianity as a way of getting about the problem. The bottom line is that we are stuck with either a smaller subset of heresies which are universally or nearly universally considered such by all Christians (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses present special problems because they are so different from other Trinitarian Christians) or an attempt to cover all heresies regardless of the fact that some branches (e.g. Protestants) accept some of the teachings. If we want to describe all heresies, then we have to accept that some beliefs will be considered heresies by some Christians and acceptable teaching by others. Restricting this article to only those beliefs considered heretical by Catholics doesn't allow us to cover the full topic of "Heresy in Christianity". I'm open to suggestions for changing the article title but I feel pretty strongly that we should not limit the article scope to "Heresy from the Catholic POV". --Richard S (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue within the issue is that only the Catholics and a few Protestant bodies really have a formalized system of identifying and naming false doctrines. If you look at the Anglicans, to take a fairly bad example, most anything identified by the antemedieval church as a heresy would be so identified by most Anglican theologians as heresy; but there's no real formal statements to back that up, and you can always find dissenters. The degree of agreement in Orthodoxy is very high but again there's not a lot of formalization once you get out of conciliar period. The other side of all that is that once you get the anti-Protestantism out of the way, the mainline Protestants generally do agree with the assessment, and the others either agree, or haven't really considered the issue.
One would think we would have to have "Errors of the Catholic Church" or some other similar article to present the Protestant side of this, unless we can figure a way to fit this all into one article. I think perhaps a better approach might be to divide up the heresies by class (e.g. Trinitarian, Christological, ...) and indicate in the sublists which groups make the identification. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Carlaude may be bias since she/he is a Protestant heretic in religious disposition
Catholic doctrine has developed to where the Church now regards Protestants not as heretics but as separated brethern. Unless a Catholic wishes to break his baptismal vows and thus be guilty of both disobedience and hypocrisy, he must submit to Catholic doctrine as it is.
The article title "heresies in Catholicism" negates the fact that the Orthodox consider these as heresies as well.
The Orthodox consider themselves Catholic, so I doubt that. Plus, they consider Transubstantiation to be unorthodox. So, trying to make a heretical article for both Catholics and Orthodox would be confusing.
The title "List of heresies in Catholicism" is pretty neutral. It has a superficial ring of bias in it, but, the article's leading sentence clears that up.
Oct13 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is a POV violation... imagine if there was an article titled "People that Protestants think aren't real Christians" The fact that this template is being added to pages is a ridiculous and blatant disregard of Wiki's POV standards.ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to List of Christian heresies. This seems to be the least problematic option.Cúchullain t/c 12:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of heresies in Catholicism → List of early Christian heresies – I believe the article would be both more in accord with NPOV and more useful to the encyclopedia if it were renamed to the above. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC) First, I believe that the existing article title is inherently POV, as it relates to only one Christian group with a long history. Many of these beliefs would be considered heretical by Orthodox as well. Does their opinion somehow matter less than that of Catholics? Also, I believe it is inherently POV to refer to these heresies as being "in Catholicism". "To Catholicism" might be more accurate, but I believe even that title would be inherently POV, unless similar lists of beliefs considered heretical by other Christian groups were also developed. This brings up the last point, the more recent extant groups. I think most reasonable editors would know that the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, who hold beliefs which are substantially different than Catholics, could be described as "heretics" by Catholics. But, that being the case, pretty much any group which is not Catholic could be included here, and such a list would be both unworkable and functionally usless. I believe that there is some slight hope for the article being both NPOV and useful, but that for it to be so it would probably need to have a title and apparent scope which is not itself obviously POV pushing (like the current article is for the Catholic POV), and also probably of broader use. The title I propose above I believe helps address these concerns regarding the neutrality and possible usefulness of this page. The groups to be listed would probably be limited to those which were found to be "unorthodox" or heretical by the major extant Christian groups, the Catholics, Orthodox, and probably Assyrians, prior to the Reformation era, when several different groups came into existence, and the word "heresy" became both more frequently used to describe others and, on that basis, less neutral and less informative. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the particular destination. I don't really buy that this is an inappropriately POV article. Were it called List of heresies and was written from a Catholic POV, then yes, that would be grossly inappropriate. But if an article is meant to demonstrate a what a particular group considers to be heresy, then the neutral reporting of what that group considers is not POV pushing, just reporting of facts. In fact, I think it would be good if similar articles were created from other Churches' and ecclesical community's perspectives. Because this page has no prejudice against creating other such articles, I don't see the problem with the status quo. But I do think that a move to "to Catholicism" would be an improvement over the current title. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is going to be a headache, either way This is going to be a headache either way and I do not see a clear way out. Yes, there were/are declarations of heresies, and a list can be made. But then as John said above these lists are at times used to label anyone who sneezes the other way a heretic. And as Arsenal was suggesting further above, calling all protestants "heretics" is really pushing the limit. And how many other non-Catholic groups are heretics, and who determines that? It will be a NPOV-nightmare to make that list. Now, turning the tables, will an article called "list of things stolen by Catholics" not give rise to objections? As we all know Our Lady of Kazan was obtained (well, let us say without a receipt) and was in Vatican city for a few years, until it was "returned". So these issues can give rise to heated debate, but may not do much for the project. The early Christian heresies article should probably exist anyway, and then an smaller (non-inflammatory) article on "ecumenical issues" may discuss the denominational differences, also airing the issues Lutherans may have with the ex-Biblical Catholic extensions, etc. So I think a partial move and rename may be the best way to get out of this. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it is a very odd title as it stands - it doesn't look like anything you'd find anywhere else - also, wasn't it like christianity , as dogma , was forming and different ideas were marching alongside , rather than some ideas 'in' the orthodox -til certain formulae became dominant, - the suggested change title looks like something you'd find elsewhere - 'list of early christian heresies'- it just sounds right , and 'heresies in Catholicism' sounds wrong. Sayerslle (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I'll vote later: I objected to a similar navbox because it lent itself to misunderstandings and friction when appended to several articles. Even so
  1. I would not object to a LIST of "Opinions considered heretical by the Catholic Church" - this seems a more NPOV title.
  2. The present list cannot simply be relabelled, since it goes far beyond the early Church.
  3. Why not split the contents as (i) "List of Opinions considered heretical prior to 1054", where a high degree of agreement is possible, and (ii) "List of more recent opinions considered heretical by the Catholic Church"?
  4. In any case, whatever the past history, Protestantism and Calvinism are misplaced in this list, current Catholic practice is to treat them as "(separated) brethren".
  5. Is anyone going to tackle the distinction between "formal" heresy and "material" heresy?
Jpacobb (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point to the above comments, and Carl's comments as well. The question about a "List of opinions heretical to the Catholic Church" is that it is an obvious spinout from a broader "List of opinions considered heretical in Christianity" and would almost certainly have a remarkable degree of overlap with similar lists for the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches. We try in general to avoid having such substantive duplication of material. 1054 is one cut-off point - I might think the Reformation might be a better one, but that is just one opinion. Personally, I would at least initially opt for a single List of Christian heresies, with subsections for early Christianity prior to either the East-West schism or the Reformation, and then separate lists for opinions since that point, or, possibly, some sort of table format which would allow separate indicators for each relevant opinion regarding certain widely rejected beliefs. I do, in general, think that a specific list on early heresies, perhaps under a different title, would be useful, particularly for the period before the separation of the churches. There certainly were a lot of beliefs during that time which were later rejected, and I think there is material enough for it. His last point, about formal heresies and material heresy, or perhaps "specifically rejected beliefs" and "organizations (churches, etc.) effectively, but not necessarily specifically, rejected for espousing rejected beliefs," is also a good one, and is actually one of my personal bigger concerns. I think in general we already have articles on most of the nominally heretical doctrinal points which lead groups to be not accepted as non-heretical, but the matter is still a relevant one. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator noted, many of these beliefs will be considered heretical by Orthodox churches, and even Protestant ones for that matter. So the current title is inappropriate. However, the heresies that occurred after the Great Schism are more prominently Catholic cases, some of which may have had no involvement in Orthodox areas. And some of them can't be called "early Christian" in any sense, so the proposed title is inappropriate. On balance, I'd lean towards a weak oppose. I'll have the audacity to suggest a counterproposal below. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproposal[edit]

Return to List of Christian heresies. We aren't going to be able to come up with a title that pleases everyone, but I think this is the best course. How do you deal with the Protestant issue? Expand or modify the "Official Condemnation" section to make clear who says Fooism is heretical. There's going to be too much overlap for separate denominational articles, not to mention the bulk of heresies occurring before the establishment of modern denominational lines. Let's face it—you can't call something heresy while maintaining NPOV except when you're saying "X labelled Y a heresy." So let's be clear about that and move to a more appropriately broad article name. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This does seem to be the better alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would support either, but this is slightly better - btw. I like the collegiate and sensible way the issue has been discussed above. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could keep the title List of heresies in Catholicism, since it wouldn't be possible to maintain a NPOV when talking about heresies. A Circumcellion might complain, lol. But this entry needs lots of work in a deep edit using the policy you can't call something heresy while maintaining NPOV except when you're saying "X labelled Y a heresy." --Brighella11 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We need the scope reduced somehow, but in a less POV fashion The main issue for looking at any later issue, e.g. the nature of the Eucharist, is that every position is held heretical by someone in the major traditions. So continuing with my example, we would have to list every theory of communion as a heresy, identifying the various major groups that reject each. This strikes me as pointlessly cumbersome and unilluminating; I can see a different list article which tabulates the differences of opinion among the major surviving traditions on the central issues, but identifying that as a list of heresies is misleading. A list of heresies should contain only those positions which all the major traditions reject: the various non-trinitarian positions, the Christological positions that didn't make the cut anywhere, the various gnostics, and miscellany such as donatism. At that we would have to leave out of the consensus the various restorationists such as the JWs who revived some early heresies. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now what[edit]

Clearly the lead needs to be modified, because it doesn't fit with the article title any longer. How is it to be written? On what basis are the things on this page Christian heresies? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the very page is a Wiki-heresy now, given that it does not match the title, and calls Calvinists Christian heretics - clearly not so. My guess is that one can start commenting out large parts of it, then if suitable WP:Secondary sources are found some may come back - but maybe not. And given that most people were not in favor of this page anyway, I don't see big objections to a 70% (or more, say 80%) trim via commenting out. I think "early Christian" may be the final destination here after all. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a far happier solution in my eyes. Cut out the medieval and later sections, and move the page to List of early Christian heresies. What is right now is a gigantic POV trainwreck. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. History2007 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking Lead section and Listing[edit]

I have had a go at redoing the lead section. I have also started to restructure the listing. It is a rather conservative effort as the retention of the material in the Appendix shows. I felt that the information should not just disappear. What I have removed by commenting out are those positions where I suspect the R-C Church may well have had second thoughts after Vatican II. Jpacobb (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may also work, but the Appendix should not dominate it probably. The section structure seems strange however: Early Christianity, Gnosticism, Christological, Medieval. It should either be temporal order of structural. And was iconoclasm a heresy? This article does need much work. So much work that I will no longer look here, lest I am tempted to edit it... History2007 (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iconoclasm was rejected by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787. There was a further outbreak in the early ninth century led by a series of emperors but finally in 842/3 when Methodius became Patriarch of Constantinople Nicea II was followed again.
I agree that the structure of the material is totally illogical but wikitables are not easy. I incline to make three sub-sections under early church: Trinitarian/Christological; Gnosticism; "Others" but rearranging wikitables needs to be done when one has plenty of time since some data needs to be moved between sections. Jpacobb (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the article is now in a more-or-less reasonable condition in terms of the overall discussion as to its nature and purpose and I am going to do something else for a bit. There is a lot of detailed work still to be done on content & references, plus wikification Jpacobb (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove POV template?[edit]

The debate about POV seems to have died down and while no article is immune to accusations of POV, I consider the legitimate points made earlier have been dealt with and this template is now unnecessary. Unless someone objects I will remove it towards the end of this month (November 2012) Jpacobb (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No particular concerns regarding the removal of the template itself, but a few other concerns come to mind, bitchy and persnickety as they might be.
In a list, according to guidelines, every item in the list should be individually referenced. Presumably, in a case like this, that would mean a citation indicating that the belief has been called a "heresy." Probably not that big a deal, but a possible concern.
So far as I can tell, this list does seem oriented toward heresies as determined by Catholicism and/or its predecessor, less clearly divided, church. I imagine most of the Eastern Orthodox churches would agree with the Catholic Church's opinions in most cases, but, maybe, some might still object to perhaps excluding any groups which might have been declared "heretical" by, perhaps, the Ethiopian Orthodox or Old Catholics, or even the Jehovah's Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostalism. That potentially could result in some POV concerns. Granted, I don't know how many, if any, such groups called heretical by such bodies might actually exist, and, if they do, spinout articles for some such might fairly easily be created.
But, like I said, based on the evidence, no particular reason to object to removing the template. In general, I think those other bodies I mentioned are less frequently referred to as "Christian" without additional qualifiers, and the lede as it stands indicates the specific scope of the article itself, regardless of the article title. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. I think that your concern about a source justifying the inclusion of a heresy is met to some extend by the "official condemnation" column but I agree there is room for improvement here as and when time permits. Jpacobb (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It probably isn't the most reliable source, but I did find The International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies & Fraternal Orders, by Alan Axelrod, 1997, published by Facts on File, which included each of the following groups, with more or less a separate paragraph each, in an article on "Heretics," on pages 118 through 121: Adoptionism; Albigenses; Beguines and Beghards; Bogomils; Cataphrygianism; Cathari; Docetae; Donatists; Ebionites; Fraticelli; Hussites; Lollards; Manichaeism; Marcionite Churches; Minorites; Monarchianism; Monphysites; Monothelites; Montanism; Nestorianism; Paulicianism; Waldenses. It probably isn't in and of itself necessarily sufficient grounds for including any groups which aren't already included here, but it should be at least an acceptable source for those which are. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it might be worth, I gathered together a list of people and groups deemed heresies and included in one reference book on that topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles#Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. The information there might be useful, and, if for whatever reasons, editors here don't have access to that book, they can feel free to drop me a note indicating what articles they would like to see reproduced and I can e-mail those articles out, hopefully rather quickly. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The POV tag was inserted in May 2012, this page has been reworked since then and the POV debate seems to have died down. Having proposed its removal in November, in the absence of any objections and the lack of further discussion on this page, I am removing it. Jpacobb (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of "heresies" missing ...[edit]

... f.ex.:

  • roman catholicism (in the view of protestants),
  • lutherans (in the view of roman catholics, etc..),
  • calvinists (in the view of lutherans, roman catholics, etc..),

etc., etc.. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current position of the three Churches mentioned and mainy other mainstream ones is that the differences between them do not amount to heresy. For the r-c position see the decree on ecumenism of Vatican II. Jpacobb (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on Heresy in Christianity and Schism may help in thinking about this. These differences are generally viewed as schisms rather than heresies. EastTN (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Christian Zionism as a heresy[edit]

I removed this section under "Modern Heresies."

"Belief that the ingathering of the exiles (Jews) in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with Christian Dispensationalism."

I've seen a lot of agenda driven edits on Wikipedia and some outright horrific information, but this has to take the cake. Did anyone happen to check the source for the "council?" First some of these more recent "heresies" on this page are debatable differences. But I won't get into that. That council/source was no authority, Protestant or Catholic. It was a straight up pro-Arab site, pro-Arab as in meaning to say Israel has no right to the land.

This is a page on *Christian* heresies. Christian meaning those who say they follow Jesus Christ, who is the promised Messiah and Redeemer coming through the Jewish people. Christians are those who believe Jesus is who he said he was, the Son of God come as Son of Man as the sole Savior of the world (Isaiah 43:11.) The Old Testament and the prophets testify to Jesus's coming (Luke 24:44.)

A heresy is defined as a belief that is contrary to accepted doctrine. If a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said to listen to the prophets (also in Rev 1:3 and Rev 22:6,), what those prophets say, who also testified to the coming of Christ cannot be considered a heresy.

The ingathering of the exiles is Scriptural.

""I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out;" Ezekiel 20:34 NASB
"For he has gathered the exiles from many lands, from east and west, from north and south." Psalm 107:3 NLT
"In that day the LORD will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, and you, Israel, will be gathered up one by one." Isaiah 27:12 NLT (This is happening right now as groups across Africa and Asia are being found and identified as part of the 10 lost tribes of Israel.
"I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice." Ezekiel 34:16
"Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, And gather you from the west. “I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring My sons from afar And My daughters from the ends of the earth," Isaiah 43:5-6
"Fields will be bought for silver, and deeds will be signed, sealed and witnessed in the territory of Benjamin, in the villages around Jerusalem, in the towns of Judah and in the towns of the hill country, of the western foothills and of the Negev, because I will restore their fortunes, declares the LORD."" Jeremiah 32:44 NIV (This happened. When the Jews started to return to Israel, they bought back the land, often at extremely inflated prices, and reclaimed it. Read "Innocents Abroad" by Mark Twain and his impression of the Holy Land if you want to know what it was like before that.)
""Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons." Jeremiah 32:44 NIV (This happened on May 14, 1948.)

Yes, the ingathering of the exiles is Scriptural. It is Orthodox, not a heresy.

As for the belief that the exiles must be regathered before Jesus returns, that is Scriptural as well. There are multiple Scriptures that indicate this, but I think the clearest picture is painted by Zechariah. Chapter 14 talks about the Lord himself coming to fight for Israel after Jerusalem is overrun. He does this in response to the Jewish people acknowledging him as Lord, corporately and in national repentance.

"“Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. 11 The sorrow and mourning in Jerusalem on that day will be like the great mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo." Zechariah 12:10-11

Jesus speaking to the religious leaders of Israel who repudiated and rejected him:

"37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. 38 And now, look, your house is abandoned and desolate. 39 For I tell you this, you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” - Matthew 23:37-39 NLT (This is a prophecy of the diaspora as well as the condition for his second coming.)
"“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. And now, look, your house is abandoned. And you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’[b]” - Luke 13:34-35 NLT.

Ezekiel also prophesied that the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem would be blocked until the Lord came (Ezekiel 44:1-3.) Suleman thought that belief orthodox enough that he blocked the gate AND put a cemetery in front of it in order to somehow forestall the return of the Messiah.

Just a clue, death, a tombstone and the gates of hell didn't stop him last time . . . and a few bricks aren't going to keep him back the next. Cma01 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename??[edit]

How about merely listing the specifically theological controversies within Christendom? Then one could organize the hotly-debated theological controversies by type, with one or more 'Main Article' pages for each of the heated discussions. MaynardClark (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing[edit]

There are many missing. Alogianism (Denied the Gospel and Epistles of John as Scripture), Collyridianism (Worshipped Mary), the Judaizers (Taught you have to obey the Mosaic ceremonial law to be saved), the Nicolaitans (Possibly founded by the deacon Nicholas; Unknown beliefs, possibly antinomian and most likely proto-gnostic), Preterism (Hymenaeus and Philetus; Taught that the resurrection of believers had already happened), Johannitism (Taught John the Baptist was the messiah), Nonadorantism (Not worshipping Jesus), Calcagnoism (Taught by Francesco Calcagno, says Jesus was a homosexual), and quite a few others. The list is good, but incomplete. --Awobbie73 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hyper-grace" movement[edit]

There was an attempt to refute "hyper-grace" in the section on modern movements, but no accurate description of the supposed "error" was made. Mineben256 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at refutation of the "hyper-grace" movement were done using Protestant sources in a section about Catholic heresies, and it is also redundant because of the Antinomianism entry above it. Mineben256 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individualism[edit]

I think the part about individualism is out of place. The standalone page on individualism doesn’t seem to actually mention religious objections much less a accusations of heresy nor is there any reference to indicate any pope or cardinal or any catholic theologian whatsoever has denounced individualism as a heresy.

A potential replacement maybe could be Sede Vacantism, specifically the society of Saint Pius X. I don’t think it has ever been called a ‘heresy’ not officially been deemed a schismatic group but there were excommunications and despite moves since the 2009 rescission of the excommunications from 1988 the church has stated their ordinations though valid, are suspended and the group remain canonically irregular: LordBurke (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material[edit]

I find most of the 20th century material problematic in this article for reasons I've laid out in part at WP:NPOVN: the title of this page I think is fine if you want to discuss early church heresies (read: pre-1058) and *possibly* those up to the Protestant Reformation. The issue with the title and the post-Reformation groups is that even if there is a subheading discussing groups labeled by the Catholic Church as heretical, with the title, it implies that the groups are found heretical in all of Christianity, even if this is not the intent. I think it would be fine to have an article on groups labeled heretical by the Catholic Church, but even then, we'd need to make sure it was reliably sourced and not written in a way to suggest that Wikipedia agrees with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed, per the discussion below. Discussion about whether to split the article can continue as necessary and is not within the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 23:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


List of Christian heresies → List of defunct Christian denominations – Per WP:NPOV. See: Category:Defunct Christian organizations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. 1. "Defunct Christian denominations" were not necessarily heresies. 2. Describing heresies as merely "defunct Christian denominations" is not neutral. 3. The current article does not list defunct Christian denominations, it lists heresies. Anything listed here as a heresy should be accompanied by a source for who calls it heretical, but so long as that's done, NPOV is not implicated. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The listed beliefs are regularly described as heresies in relevant reliable sources. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fayenatic london as I mentioned above, everything pre-1400 you could probably get away with calling a heresy. The issue is the Protestant groups, and to a lesser extent the groups that inspired the Protestant reformers. Even if in a header under the Catholic Church, there is an NPOV issue because the title implies they are generally considered heretics. There’s also the fact that to many Protestants, the faith of the Roman Church is considered heretical or worse (some Adventist groups use particularly colourful language.) I’m not a fan of this proposed name, but I think either a move or a split needs to happen. (Also courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos as she first noticed the NPOV/RS concerns on this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that heading, I don't consider NPOV to be a substantial problem here. There is currently a good explanation of both the historical and the present-day official Catholic views. The information could perhaps be helpfully balanced out by mentioning the historical Protestant view of the Great Apostasy. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move to the proposed title, mainly because I feel it is an inaccurate summary of the contents of the article. However, I do think that some kind of split or move is necessary. I'd be more in favor of something like, "list of beliefs declared heretical by the Catholic Church", because that's objective and NPOV: either the Church officially declared something a heresy or it didn't. If that means the more modern stuff is excluded, then so be it - I think it's fair to say there's been a lot less that's been declared officially heretical in the past couple hundred years. Maybe the modern stuff could be placed at something like a "list of controversial Christian movements", but on the other hand, that's a powder keg waiting to happen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose having little to do with the current list. Also note, some heresies were ideas without a particular group named for them. tahc chat 16:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better plan would be to move (or split) the list into a List of Christian heresies of the 1st millennium (and a maybe another for later heresies of the Catholic Church view). tahc chat 16:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A "denomination" is an organized religious group. A "heresy" is a doctrine. Not every heresy formed a group: some were invented by a single person and never believed by anyone else; some like Jansenism were popular within certain groups but never had groups of their own. If you find the current title offensive, than you have to come up with an alternative that isn't historically false. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The major reasons given above are valid ones and weighty. However, some of the contents could do with an overhaul. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Objection to name change[edit]

Most of the entries on this list have been condemned by other branches of Christendom. Most, in fact, were condemned long before the Catholic Church as such even existed. It should be changed back to better reflect the list's purpose: as it stands now, it gives the arrogant and flat-out wrong impression that the Catholic Church is the sole determiner of heresy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merges[edit]

Why not merge Catholic teachings on heresy and Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church here? Better keep it in one place. PPEMES (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a list, it's a collection of tables/charts. The actual list system, including outlines, is designed for ease of navigation and maintenance, while tables are tedious to build and maintain. Annotated lists are more convenient to build, maintain, and use. They are also a more convenient format for copying/pasting into personal projects — they're list items and prose, which are easier to repurpose. Format is the main issue here, and there are good reasons to keep both formats (tables and outlines). The best solution is to have them coexist -- there is no reason to favor one format over the other. Different users would find each format useful for something different than the other.    — The Transhumanist   07:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: ping @PPEMES: —TT
Support merge of Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church into List of heresies in the Catholic Church. The former is a simpler version of List of heresies in the Catholic Church, duplicating the table in a list format, which as no conceivable benefit other than increasing the workload; to maintain 2 pages rather than one. So, merge on the grounds of duplication. Klbrain (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catholic teachings on heresy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heresy in the Catholic Church which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communism[edit]

I have twice removed communism from this list. The text and sources indicated that communism was declared to be apostasy, not heresy. This page is "List of heresies...". Heresy and apostasy are not the same thing.--Srleffler (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is not a heresy. Communism is a political system, not a theological position. While the Church rejects communism as it is incompatible with the Catholic faith, it is in itself not an heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:d74:4d7e:3f25:46b1:e4e4 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Christian heresies" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Christian heresies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § List of Christian heresies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23 § Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Outline of Heresies in Catholicism" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Outline of Heresies in Catholicism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23 § Outline of Heresies in Catholicism until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 23 § Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maximón[edit]

Should Maximón be listed? --94.255.152.53 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_heresies_in_the_Catholic_Church&oldid=1219356389"