Talk:Heresy

Transodoxy

The only sources for this are on social media, which cannot be referenced so I am adding it here. While some people might identify as “heretics”, many if not most accused of “heretics” would deny this exteriorly imposed identity. And since some accused of “heresy” would accept neither “orthodoxy” nor “heterodoxy” as representative of their views, the terms “transodoxy” and “transodox” has emerged on social media sites such as Facebook and MeWe for persons who self-identify as being outside or beyond the orthodoxy-heterodoxy-heresy spectrum. It is largely due to how uptight many “orthodox” persons are in marginalizing members of their own faith traditions and the acceptance of “trans” identity politics that has made some people who formerly identified as orthodox decide to identify instead as transodox. These words would never get through the Wiki admins so I am including them here. I am myself a Transodox Christian, and I reject the incessant labelling of me as a heretic by certain Orthodox Christians. And while I am initiated in both the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and have never been officially censured by any bishop in those communions I prefer to call myself a Transodox Christian due to how ugly I perceive the behavior of many Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. And I certainly am not going to self-identify as either a heterodox or heretical Christian as those terms are disparaging. DErnestWachter (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

i can’t figure out how to edit a former post. Obviously my English was poor but you all get the point. The above should read: accused of being “heretics” have emerged

If someone knows how to edit former posts in a Wikipedia Talk section, do let me know. Thanks. DErnestWachter (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You can edit your previous posts by clicking "Edit" next to the section heading, or at the top of the page. --Srleffler (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

i see Talk does not recognize line breaks. It strung together my two separate revisions that I put on separate lines as one line. I meant it should read: accused of being “heretics” / & / have emerged. DErnestWachter (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Line breaks happen automatically at the end of lines on the reader's screen. If you want a paragraph break, you leave a blank line between the two paragraphs.--Srleffler (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of Robert Michael's book as source for claim that "The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy"

The statement: "The Church Fathers identified Jews and Judaism with heresy" was introduced here :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heresy&diff=prev&oldid=646389415 and sourced to a 2011 book by Robert Michael titled "A history of Catholic antisemitism : the dark side of the church", which is conveniently available on Google Books. The specific claim is made there (in fact, the statement is basically a paraphrase), as is the quotation from Tertullian -- but the quote isn't actually sourced. The nearby footnotes are:

22. Efroymson, Tertullian's Anti-Judaism, 15.

23. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (Chicago 1974), 201.

which seem to refer to a thesis (OCLC 3640965) and a widely-available reference work OCLC 1866633. It's not clear that the quote (which we also should try and nail down a source for) actually supports the claim of "identification" vs "inspiration" of heresy. We should probably fix that (with a source). -- 104.232.114.65 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for Galileo point of view

I reverted this edit again, because it appears to be pushing a particular point of view and is not adequately sourced. The edit removes two references, and introduces two new ones to support its point of view. One of those is a link to Youtube. The other is a reference to a book by John Lennox, a Christian apologist, published by a publisher of Christian children's books. This does not seem like a reliable source. If historians have truly changed their point of view on the Galileo incident, it should be possible to support that claim with better sources than this. Srleffler (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also not clear that we need to say that much about Galileo. The text I restored sticks pretty much to the facts of the judgement against him, which is pretty much all we need for this article. Even if one could support the statement that the "Church had no problem with Galileo's scientific positions in themselves" it wouldn't really be relevant here; the fact is that the Church declared Galileo a heretic explicitly for "having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world..." The fact that Jesuits were conducting experiments that confirmed Galileo's is irrelevant. The fact that Galileo was an ass who mocked people who disagreed with him is irrelevant. This article is about heresy.--Srleffler (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked at this in detail, and will not unless someone shows up to defend the changes, but I'm inclined to agree with questioning the sources and the irrelevant content. Definitely up to user:Just An Average Editor to engage here and attempt to get consensus for this change or an acceptable compromise version. Meters (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Medieval heresy was never ever organized

... according to R I Moore: The war on heresy, Profile Books 2014. It was not anything from the Balkans, it was simply an outgrowth of the church itself.

It began with the reform movement in the tenth century against that bishops lived like aristocrats obeying the kings in whose service they often were. It gained a huge following because people in general believed that priests shoould not live more luxuriously than them. When the reform movement "won" with the pontificate of Gregory VII he sent out missionaries, of which many were laymen, to preach against luxury.

However, reform implied more power to the leaders of the church, so that they could expulse the non-reformed. And with power came resources. After a few generation the reforming zeal of the official church had grown rather thin.

In 1123 the reform party made peace with the non-reform, and declared for hierarchy and property.

The movement based on lay people, however went on, and were increasingly declared heretics by the official church.

And "heretic" became a favourite accusation by whoever wanted to accuse anyone of anything. It was branded around particularly by the lords in Occitaine, where power was shaky and striffe was common. And when bigger lords, like Pope Innocent III, heard about the accusations they simply concluded that Occitaine was full of heretic and demanded a war against them. He made the whole land a prize for anyone that wanted to take part in the war, and unemployed knights from the whole of France flocked to it.

That's all. "Heretic" worked like "Communist" in Mc Carthy's USA. Or "trotskyist" in Stalin's SU. Something one can use to get at people. But the only unifying theme of a "heretic" was to believe that priests shouldn't live in luxury. ~2026-22746-97 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)