Difference between revisions of "Dissidentia"
From GATE
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | What is the importance of heresy<ref>Catholic canon law defines heresy as “the persistent denial, after receiving baptism, of a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, or the pertinacious doubt about it; apostasy is the total rejection of the Christian faith. Schism is the rejection to subject oneself to the Supreme Pontiff or to have communion with the members of the church submitted to him... [Nevertheless,] From a current perspective, the commentators of the Pauline texts, both Catholic and Protestant, have chosen to interpret the Greek expression ''hairesis'' (Latin ''haeresia'') in the sense of splits, parties, factions, and not as doctrinal discrepancies that would receive later. St. Paul [1 Cor, 11:19], they say, would be thinking in the contrasts of practical, moral and personal characteristics of the Corinthian community” (Mitre 2003, 175, 33).</ref> and dissent for the sociocultural evolution of Christian semantics? Put in social systems language it could be said that in the course of Christian communications evolution, heresies or non-conformist Christian communications represent ''variations'' which allow the recognition of a particular communicative ''selection'', which in time will be expressed as an expectation structure (''stabilization'') or simply as ''ecclesiastical orthodoxy''<ref>For the sociocultural evolution mechanisms compare Luhmann (2007a, 325-469), third chapter on evolution.</ref>.<p>For a Christian Church history the main variation element turns out to be unorthodox theological standpoints or assertions opposed to ecclesiastical sanctioned dogmas<ref>For the detailed argumentation compare Ornelas (2018, 87-170), second chapter on heresies and Christian organization.</ref>. Non-conformist Christian communications function was that of defining a particular and alternative Christian semantics, and allowing for various ecclesiastical patriarchates to consolidate. Here, the guiding distinctions are orthodoxy/ heresy (canonical/ apochriphal when referred to the testamentary tradition, and hegemonic Church/ schismatic Church when viewed from an organizational perpective).</p> | + | What is the importance of heresy<ref>Catholic canon law defines heresy as “the persistent denial, after receiving baptism, of a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, or the pertinacious doubt about it; apostasy is the total rejection of the Christian faith. Schism is the rejection to subject oneself to the Supreme Pontiff or to have communion with the members of the church submitted to him... [Nevertheless,] From a current perspective, the commentators of the Pauline texts, both Catholic and Protestant, have chosen to interpret the Greek expression ''hairesis'' (Latin ''haeresia'') in the sense of splits, parties, factions, and not as doctrinal discrepancies that would receive later. St. Paul [1 Cor, 11:19], they say, would be thinking in the contrasts of practical, moral and personal characteristics of the Corinthian community” (Mitre 2003, 175, 33).</ref> and dissent for the sociocultural evolution of Christian semantics? Put in social systems language it could be said that in the course of Christian communications evolution, heresies or non-conformist Christian communications represent ''variations'' which allow the recognition of a particular communicative ''selection'', which in time will be expressed as an expectation structure (''stabilization'') or simply as ''ecclesiastical orthodoxy''<ref>For the sociocultural evolution mechanisms compare Luhmann (2007a, 325-469), third chapter on evolution.</ref>.<p>For a Christian Church history the main variation element turns out to be unorthodox theological standpoints or assertions opposed to ecclesiastical sanctioned dogmas<ref>For the detailed argumentation compare Ornelas (2018, 87-170), second chapter on heresies and Christian organization.</ref>. Non-conformist Christian communications function was that of defining a particular and alternative Christian semantics, and allowing for various ecclesiastical patriarchates to consolidate. Here, the guiding distinctions are orthodoxy/ heresy (canonical/ apochriphal when referred to the testamentary tradition, and hegemonic Church/ schismatic Church when viewed from an organizational perpective).</p><br> |
| − | < | + | ==== Guiding Distinctions for a Sociological Framework ==== |
When Church history is viewed through these guiding distinctions, the protruding theoretical statement is that dogma formation is linked to ecclesiastical organization (consolidation of patriarchates ''together with its territorial jurisdiction'') as well as to ''their rivalry'' (in general the question about the primacy of patriarchates). The more creepy and daring the beliefs asserted dogmatically, the greater the need to make religious generalizations, that is, to affirm ''one’s own theological opinion'' against the opinions held by ''other organized churches'', in order to establish them as criterion of membership: | When Church history is viewed through these guiding distinctions, the protruding theoretical statement is that dogma formation is linked to ecclesiastical organization (consolidation of patriarchates ''together with its territorial jurisdiction'') as well as to ''their rivalry'' (in general the question about the primacy of patriarchates). The more creepy and daring the beliefs asserted dogmatically, the greater the need to make religious generalizations, that is, to affirm ''one’s own theological opinion'' against the opinions held by ''other organized churches'', in order to establish them as criterion of membership: | ||
Revision as of 16:44, 15 January 2019
What is the importance of heresy[1] and dissent for the sociocultural evolution of Christian semantics? Put in social systems language it could be said that in the course of Christian communications evolution, heresies or non-conformist Christian communications represent variations which allow the recognition of a particular communicative selection, which in time will be expressed as an expectation structure (stabilization) or simply as ecclesiastical orthodoxy[2].
For a Christian Church history the main variation element turns out to be unorthodox theological standpoints or assertions opposed to ecclesiastical sanctioned dogmas[3]. Non-conformist Christian communications function was that of defining a particular and alternative Christian semantics, and allowing for various ecclesiastical patriarchates to consolidate. Here, the guiding distinctions are orthodoxy/ heresy (canonical/ apochriphal when referred to the testamentary tradition, and hegemonic Church/ schismatic Church when viewed from an organizational perpective).
Guiding Distinctions for a Sociological Framework
When Church history is viewed through these guiding distinctions, the protruding theoretical statement is that dogma formation is linked to ecclesiastical organization (consolidation of patriarchates together with its territorial jurisdiction) as well as to their rivalry (in general the question about the primacy of patriarchates). The more creepy and daring the beliefs asserted dogmatically, the greater the need to make religious generalizations, that is, to affirm one’s own theological opinion against the opinions held by other organized churches, in order to establish them as criterion of membership:
- ↑ Catholic canon law defines heresy as “the persistent denial, after receiving baptism, of a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, or the pertinacious doubt about it; apostasy is the total rejection of the Christian faith. Schism is the rejection to subject oneself to the Supreme Pontiff or to have communion with the members of the church submitted to him... [Nevertheless,] From a current perspective, the commentators of the Pauline texts, both Catholic and Protestant, have chosen to interpret the Greek expression hairesis (Latin haeresia) in the sense of splits, parties, factions, and not as doctrinal discrepancies that would receive later. St. Paul [1 Cor, 11:19], they say, would be thinking in the contrasts of practical, moral and personal characteristics of the Corinthian community” (Mitre 2003, 175, 33).
- ↑ For the sociocultural evolution mechanisms compare Luhmann (2007a, 325-469), third chapter on evolution.
- ↑ For the detailed argumentation compare Ornelas (2018, 87-170), second chapter on heresies and Christian organization.
