• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So, Who's your favorite Heretic?

Davidium

Active Member
Hello all!

This thread is kinda a spinoff of another one... and I do indeed have an ulterior motive here. I am considering someday writing a "History of Heresy" by doing short biographical essays of 25 or so of the most influential religious heretics in world history. But, while I have lots of ideas as to who to include, I would love to know who you all think are the worlds most influential Heretics.

I am putting this in the UU Section, because Pope John Paul once said that the UU's were the people who took all the heresies and made a religion out of them. :)

Also, tell us a little about why your vote would be for a particular Heretic....

I will start off.

My vote would be for Marsilius of Padua. In his treatsie "De Defensor Pacis" he put forth alot of ideas that we now consider the "separation of church and state" and he did so in the 1300's. One of his ideas that got him excommunicated was the concept that "Police exist to control mens actions, while the Church exists to control men's thoughts".

After publication, he spent the rest of his life on the run... but he never recanted. Today, his ideas do not seem all that strange, but in his time, he was a dangerous, radical heretic.

So, how about you? Who do you think should be included. In the other thread there were some suggestions, but this topic seemed important enough to have its own thread.

YoUUrs in Faith,

David Pyle
Galveston Island, TX
www.uugalveston.org
www.dynamicdeism.org
www.iuuda.org
 

Davidium

Active Member
Oh, and I am currently considering ending the book with a short biography of Bishop John Shelby Spong... but I'm not certain how much he will like being called a Heretic!

:)

David
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
michel said:
Galileo, Plagius, Joan of Arc:)
Who considered Joan of Arc to be a heretic? I thought she was an RC saint? She was a member of a church that we believe taught heresy so you could kind of make a case for her being a heretic from our point of view, but it would be a really flaky one because we don't really think of those who unwittingly follow heretical doctrines to be heretics.

(Oh, and I take it you mean Pelagius - he was condemned in Rome but found to be Orthodox by a council in the East so I don't really consider him a heretic, more a man whose theology went slightly too far to one extreme. The Pelagians, though, really went much further than their hero and they were heretics.)

James
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
IacobPersul said:
Who considered Joan of Arc to be a heretic? I thought she was an RC saint? She was a member of a church that we believe taught heresy so you could kind of make a case for her being a heretic from our point of view, but it would be a really flaky one because we don't really think of those who unwittingly follow heretical doctrines to be heretics.

(Oh, and I take it you mean Pelagius - he was condemned in Rome but found to be Orthodox by a council in the East so I don't really consider him a heretic, more a man whose theology went slightly too far to one extreme. The Pelagians, though, really went much further than their hero and they were heretics.)

James
http://www.groupprocessconsulting.com/flow/Joan.shtml

joan.jpg


Joan of Arc Does Impatience Invite Disaster? As much as I'd like to...we can't ignore Joan of Arc. Burning at the stake for a cause seems a bit extreme. Plus... how can we ever find the real story? There are so many versions of her story - movies, plays, novels, even websites. There is an entire field of study called "Johannic studies." She is portrayed as a messenger from God, a great warrior, a leader, a crazy woman, and an innocent 19-year-old girl. The complexity of her story, with its contradictions might be the most important part. She is both wise and naïve, courageous and timid, believable and unbelievable, selfless and selfish...like most heretics I know. Although I must admit, I'm interested in her story for one main reason...what can I learn about not burning at the stake?

Apparently, Joan started hearing voices when she was 13 (1425). First it was St. Michael, and later St. Catherine and St Margaret. She said that the voices taught her "how to behave." She kept them secret from her family and her priest - she must have suspected that they wouldn't be too thrilled. Ultimately her voices demanded action. She was promised that "the king should have his kingdom again" and that "the saints would lead her to paradise." Feeling "chosen" endowed her with exceptional levels of self-confidence and a blind disregard for consequences. She was a woman on a mission from God. Her first stop was to convince de Boudricourt to escort her to see Charles - the disputed king. It took three tries but he finally agreed to send her with an escort. This is when she first donned men's clothing-- more comfortable and quite acceptable for women traveling (not so acceptable later when she refused to stop). Once she arrived at Chinon, she continued asking for an audience with King Charles until a letter from Boudricourt convinced Charles to agree. His reasons for seeing her might have been as simple as a desire for entertainment. An 18-year-old farm girl who wanted to tell him how to save his kingdom must have seemed a welcome distraction from news about lost battles.

How did she win him over, though? Charles had to have been hungry for good news. The Burgundians and the English were destroying his world. They were power-hungry and ruthless. When they briefly ruled Paris in 1412, the day-to-day administration was handled by the public executioner (an early French experiment in downsizing?) Charles own internal conflict about his parentage (King's son or *******?) didn't help his self-confidence much. He was getting trounced out there. Maybe Joan gave him self-confidence -- a precious gift. It remains a mystery how Joan won Charles over that day in March. There are several legends: that he disguised himself and she knew him anyway (the recent movie portrayed that one) she gave him a "treasure", she told him about secret thoughts that no one else could have suspected. Maybe he just wanted to believe. He was smart enough to have her questioned by a pack of priests in Poitiers.

Apparently she was o.k. (definitely a virgin, like that matters). Nothing has survived from that first interrogation. The transcripts from her next interrogation, trial, and rehabilitation are largely intact, but nothing remains from Poitiers. They gave her a chance. Orleans (under siege) seemed a lost cause and she was so convinced that she could save it...the decision of the court to sponsor her might well have originated with a collective "oh, why the hell not?" They equipped her with everything a knight needed - except a sword which she discovered for herself buried near an altar to St Catherine. Joan enjoyed not only men's clothing but men's weapons as well. Before she left, she sent an arrogant note to the English and Burgundians giving them a chance to give up before she arrived to "have them all killed." They scoffed. She bristled.

In her glorious suit of armor brandishing a white banner with a blue fleur-de-lis, she must have seemed a striking symbol of hope for the desperate and hungry troops. The generals who expected her to be no more than a pretty symbol, learned different when she scolded them for ignoring her military tactical directions. She told them, "The Lord's advice is surer and wiser than yours!" She did not suffer their foolishness. That first day of failure (proof of what happens when you don't listen to Joan) was followed by victory once the soldiers began following her orders. On that first successful day, even the wind seemed to obey Joan's directives and moved ships aside to allow opportunities for Joan's triumph. This miraculous victory launched an external reputation that began to equal her internal image as the "daughter of God."

She threw her weight around, went where she wanted, called the shots and won more battles than seemed possible. At least, she was present at battles won by the troops. Was she taking orders from the Ultimate General? Or could it be that disheartened soldiers simply found new energy and courage when they heard a maid of God openly threatening the English in writing? Did it stir their courage to hear this young maid, impatient to remain still and wait for a reply, proceed to get into a shouting match across the lines? Joan yelled that the English better do God's will, save their skins, and go home even as the English yelled back colorful descriptions of how they would burn her when they captured her.

During that first week in May, her victory in Orleans proved to the French that she was indeed sent from God and to the English she was indeed a witch. The English assumed that she must have cast a spell that sucked the courage right out of their previously reliable English soldiers. She, "withdrowe the courage of the remenant in merveillous wyse." The victories continued - once a week during June. Joan either prophesized these victories or led them. All we can say for sure is that she was there.

Being driven, Joan loved fast action. She was impatient. This was a sure factor in the speed of her success. The first of her promises came true within six weeks. But, it was not such good a thing for Charles, who was reluctant to move as fast or as forcefully as Joan wanted. From the beginning, Charles kept his distance. She didn't seem to notice. She wanted him to be anointed by the holy oils in Rheims to cement his kingship over France. She told Charles she would bring him there "either by love or by force." And by God she did. His anointing in Rheims was the high point for her. It was July. She had fulfilled her goals and she was ready to go home. All Charles had left to do was recapture Paris.

The only problem was that Charles wanted to go home too. I guess he 'didn't know nuthin 'bout capturing no cities.' Exasperated, Joan stayed. She goaded him towards Paris. Instead, he withdrew. By September he had disbanded his army. She was granted the position of second-in-charge of a small, meagerly provisioned army, and fought through the winter. Joan must have been disgusted with the lack of courage and ineptitude of "senior management." Time ticked away, Joan's impatience pushed her to try to recapture Paris, an aggressive move. When proposals for a truce were offered, Joan rejected them.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Pt 2

Later during her interrogation, she was asked if the voices commanded her to take this aggressive move and she admitted, "no." When asked if she knew it was a feast day (a day that a daughter of God would not choose for a battle) she said she did. She had begun to betray her own principles in exchange for action. After four hours of unsuccessful battle, Joan was "gravely wounded and lay in the trench behind an ***." Over-enthusiasm and miscalculation of risk drove Joan from one bad decision to another and right into the hands of her captors. By the next July the proceedings that led to her trial had begun. In February relentless interrogations began the slow erosion of Joan's self-confidence. In the beginning the questions designed to trip her up were met with clipped disregard. They asked questions designed to prove her heresy according to medieval law. Did you see a light? "Pass on to the next question." Was it an angel? "Spare me that. Continue." She was belligerent and refused to be cornered...initially. She refused to take an oath to tell the truth because she did not feel they deserved to hear some of the truths she possessed. Her attitude did not endear her to her fifty-seven interrogators. The strength of numbers, decent lodging, good food, and a deep need to expose her weaknesses helped her interrogators wear her down. They dissected the voices that gave her "great comfort" demanding physical descriptions of touch, sound, and sight. Did they have wings? Natural heads? Were the wearing crowns? How did they smell? Were they warm to the touch? Once they had pulled her descriptions into the physical world (gotcha - any experience of the flesh must necessarily be Satanic), they ripped her descriptions into shreds further destroying her tenuous connection to the convictions and faith she had found from the non-physical voices.

She feared death and recanted her convictions to save her life... for four whole days. Yet in the end, she could not betray her inner experience and faith. On May 30, 1431 Joan was burned at the stake. The verdict was rescinded in 1455. She would have (could have) been about 43 years old by the time they changed their minds. In 1920 she was officially made a saint by the same church who had her burned at the stake.
:)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
http://www.groupprocessconsulting.com/flow/pelagius.shtml

Pelagius was born around 350 in Britannia and died sometime after 418 in Palestine after a second trial for heresy. His crime? Pelagius promoted the heretical idea of original sin-lessness. He did not buy into the "original sin" concept that posits that a tiny baby, if she/he dies un-baptized is going straight to hell. He said, "Who can be so impious as to deny to an infant of any age, the common redemption of the human race?" Once he started, it kept going. If we aren't born with original sin, then what is baptism for? Couldn't you live a really, really good life and get to heaven even without the water treatment from the church? And if you can, then why do we need to finance all these priests? That did it.

Pelagius referred to himself as a monk, but he wasn't. Originally, he went to Rome as a moralist - to call attention to the big differences he saw in what the church preached and what they practiced. Some of these church guys were living the high life-- not walking their talk-- and Pelagius decided to point that out. (a rather common temptation for a heretic) . The first guy he really ticked off was Jerome in 393. Jerome was a rather outspoken overconfident monk (a real one) who loved dogma. He praised the virtues of celibacy to the point where he believed that marriage was only for those who don't "pursue the higher course of celibacy." Jerome was disgusted that Pelagius even talked to women and worse, considered women worthy of theological dialogue. Around 390, a 14-year-old girl, Demetrias received letters of advice from both Jerome and Pelagius before she took her vows. Jerome basically suggested that she not bother her pretty head with theology while Pelagius stressed that she consider importance of human will in choosing between right and wrong and the "natural sanctity" of human beings. His letter encouraged her to self-examination. Pelagius wanted people to take more responsibility for their actions and viewed the original sin concept as an opportunity to cop-out. If we are all hopeless sinners, why try?

Some say that Pelagius was simply promoting the ideas of a Syrian named Rufinus. Several authors mention this in a way that makes me wonder if Rufinus might have duped Pelagius into being the front man for his own ideas - convinced him to take the heat. It is possible that Pelagius became a heretic out of ignorance, (I know I did). Yet, the important issue is that he continued his work even after he realized the risk involved. He knew what he was risking. He was put on trial for heresy and barely escaped.

Jerome was a nasty adversary, but everyone knew he was hot-headed. Jerome degraded his own credibility when he wrote of Pelagius that "the huge bloated Alpine dog"...must be "battered with the club of the spirit." Nice. Calling your adversary "fat boy" certainly sets the level of discussion. Attack was Jerome's favorite form of defense and he had many enemies. Often, he went too far. He accused Pelagius of denying that God's grace was essential to redemption. A bit of a stretch, and easily discounted when Pelagius said that grace is a part along with actions and intentions. Jerome was a loose cannon whose bark was worse than his bite. People who spit when they talk aren't taken too seriously. It was when Augustine of Hippo got involved, that Pelagius had real trouble. Jerome and Augustine may not have liked each other much, but they found common ground when it came to disliking Pelagius.

Augustine was a supreme logician. Calm, cool, brilliant, he had written Pelagius a letter in 413 and called him "brother." He might have even meant it...at the time. Yet, during Pelagius' first trial for heresy in 415 Augustine said that he had been wary of Pelagius as early as 412 and that letter he wrote was full of hidden warnings. Warnings that were apparently well hidden enough for Pelagius to think he could use Augustine's letter as a character reference in his defense. Yes, Augustine was smooth.

Augustine made his career writing about predestination, and grace as the only hope against the base wickedness of human nature. He didn't care for Pelagius' erosion of his tidy, packaged "Truth According to Augustine." Augustine wrote a Doctrine of Grace in response to Pelagius' On Nature and On Free Will. Pelagius answered his accusations with quotes from Augustine himself. Now, that ticked him off. Jerome, Augustine, and Pelagius continued in an "Is SO!-Is NOT!" fashion for a quite a while. Augustine referred to Pelagius as a "certain psuedo-monk who under the pretence of defending freedom of will, disputes the grace of God and endeavors to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith." (Christian faith or Christian Church?) Jerome called Pelagius a "pagan Originist" (as bad as calling someone a communist in the '50s). Finally Jerome and Augustine conspired a second trial in 418. Miraculously, Pelagius was acquitted, despite Jerome's shrill objections. Pelagius died soon after, at about 68 years of age. Augustine and Jerome argued with his dead body at least until 431 A.D. The argument continues today.

In a way, Pelagius "won" -heretics of that time didn't usually fare so well. He was acquitted twice, died of natural causes and his words survive and influence us even today. That's not a bad run. :)
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
The Joan of Arc stuff's interesting as I didn't know much about her, but I know all about Pelagius. It's interesting that in an as yet undivided Church his reception could be so different in East and West. We see him as a slightly exaggerated but basically Orthodox thinker the Romans saw him as a heretic, but then we don't accept Augustine's idea of original sin and one of our greatest Church Fathers (and a Romanian who settled in France) was St. John Cassian, who opposed Augustine and is often accused of semi-Pelagianism by Rome as a result. Strange really.

James
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Right now my favorite would the writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas. Where would we be if his gospel had been included in the New Testament along with or instead of John's!
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Davidium said:
Oh, and I am currently considering ending the book with a short biography of Bishop John Shelby Spong... but I'm not certain how much he will like being called a Heretic!

:)

David

From the books I've read of his, I'd assume he's been called worse and probably wouldn't mind!
 

Davidium

Active Member
Of course, I am a UU, so calling someone a heretic is a compliment from me!

At GA this year, I heard two suggestions to change the name of our Denomination...

The first, Lillithu knows very well..... "All Souls" Church...

The second was the "International Church of Heresy"... :)

Remember, the original meaning of the word Heretic is "one who chooses"....

Thank you for your suggestions...

YoUUrs in Faith,

David Pyle
Galveston Island, TX
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Probably ME, Because I chose the things to be heretical about. so I agree with them.:biglaugh:

Terry
_______________________________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Terrywoodenpic said:
Probably ME, Because I chose the things to be heretical about. so I agree with them.:biglaugh:

Terry
_______________________________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.
Thinking about it, Chaucer must have been a heretic...:)
 

Nozem

Member
I am not so sure about Chaucer being a heretic, The Parson's Tale, which is left out of some of the more popular editions of The Canterbury Tales, seems to compliment fairly established Church doctrine. But some writers, such as Terry Jones in his 'Who Murdered Chaucer' ,Metheun, Great Britain, 2003, have argued that Chaucher was influenced by the late 14th century English heretics, the Lollards. I have often felt that the Roman Catholic persecution and destruction of the Cathars and the civilisation of Languedoc in the early 13th century was a great tragedy on a humanitarian level and a loss to European culture.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
martin luther counts as a heretic doesnt he? i would deffinately include him - and maybe some of the other "break-aways" from rome in the early 1500's - like "swengli" and some others i cant quite remember at the moment


on the same trail of thought, does king henry VIII count as a heretic? im not entirely sure on that lol

C_P
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Slipknot. :jam:
Sorry, the thread title got me thinking of thier song "Heretic Anthem."

I like Vlad Tsepesh. He went against the church, and risked loosing everything, and even married a Roman Catholic, just to continue fighting for his countries freedom.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Vlad Tepes can hardly be called a heretic. He was a completely political animal and not religious at all so far as I can see. He made a purely political conversion to Roman Catholicism (given the recent fall of Constantinople and the Tartar regime in Russia the only powerful Christian countries other than Moldova were Roman Catholic, so that is understandable to a degree) but tried to keep both churches on his side while irritating both equally. He nailed a papal legate's hat to his head amongst other things and was generally a pretty cruel and violent man. He did fight to preserve his country from the Ottoman Turks, that is correct, but when his hoped for western help didn't come through he certainly went off Roman Catholicism in a hurry. To the best of my knowledge he died reconciled to the Orthodox Church. You can't be a heretic for that sort of thing in my opinion - you might as well just say everyone's a heretic because from someone else's perspective they are. Heresies are religious choices not accidents caused by something else.

And for Maize, Vlad Tepes is the character upon whom Bram Stoker based Dracula, but there is no real person by that name in Romanian history. It's a grammatical impossibility. The person the name comes from is actually Vlad Tepes's grandfather, Vlad Dracul. Dracul means 'the devil' in Romanian but was a nickname given to him for his fighting abilities and not because he was in any way bad, and it has nothing to do with dragons (I'm thinking here of Coppola's awful film). Dragon in Romanian is balaur. Unfortunately Stoker got the two characters mixed up with each other and with Hungarian folklore (vampires are not a Romanian idea) and gave birth to Dracula.

James
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
IacobPersul said:
And for Maize, Vlad Tepes is the character upon whom Bram Stoker based Dracula, but there is no real person by that name in Romanian history. It's a grammatical impossibility. The person the name comes from is actually Vlad Tepes's grandfather, Vlad Dracul. Dracul means 'the devil' in Romanian but was a nickname given to him for his fighting abilities and not because he was in any way bad, and it has nothing to do with dragons (I'm thinking here of Coppola's awful film). Dragon in Romanian is balaur. Unfortunately Stoker got the two characters mixed up with each other and with Hungarian folklore (vampires are not a Romanian idea) and gave birth to Dracula.

James

I know the character was only based on the real person. Was just making sure I was making the right connection, however flawed the original connection may have been.

On a side note, I'd love to visit Romania. The UU church I attended before I moved had a sister Unitarian church in Nyomat, Romania with whom we shared correspondence with and our minister and several church members visited. It's a completely different world.
 
Top