What was the definition of heresy (13th. C)?

Question

I write considering a definition of heresy, given by Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (fl. 1235), who's words are widely cited in regards to the history of the inquisition:

An opinion created by human reason. founded on the Scriptures, contrary to the teachings of Christ, publicly avowed and obstinately held.

You will find this definition often cited in both scholarly and popular works on the history of the Inquisition (which, incidentally, Grossetesse wasn't part of.)

It is an accurate definition, too.

However, almost every source that I find using that English cites either nothing, other English works, or Paris's Chronica maiora (ca. 1250), in particularly, the authoritative version of Henry Luard of 1872. All well and good. The context there is only moderately illuminating, but rather alarmingly it has Grosseteste saying something rather different, and more than a little significantly so--

Heresias est sententia humano sensu electa, Scriptura Sacrae contraria, palam edocta, pertinaciter defensa.

(This is the primary source. Roughly, "heresy is an idea arrived at by human reason [that is] contrary to Sacred Scripture, taught openly and obstinately defended." Similar in form but quite different, although not exactly contradictory, in meaning.)

I suspect that the English sources are circularly quoting one another, rather than bothering to read their Latin; why bother, I'd imagine? I probably wouldn't have if not for my current specific interest in this specific quote. But the quote is quite everywhere, particularly in sources dealing the early Inquisition. And the distinction is very much one with a difference.

A sententia...Scritupra Sacrae contrariae versus ex/derivate a/etc. Scriptura Sacrae are clearly two different things. Most significantly, the latter allows for the fact that non-Christians are not heretics, and that heresy is only a misinterpretation of Christianity, but the former would subsume all non-Christian thought into the idea of "heresy" (which is not what is generally meant or has historically meant to be the case.)

The English translation I can't source seems to provide a better definition than the Latin original than I can, cf. Matthew Paris --- but what's going on here? Is there a different quote from Grossetesse that I have missed? (Feels doubtful.) Has someone editorialized a definition on top of Grossetesse's? Probably a better one, certainly in line with the later definition of Aquinas and the eventual Catechism, see below: Jews and Muslims are not heretics, although some have called Islam a heretical offshoot of Christianity, notably the late-19th c. Reformed scholar Schaff, but he wasn't very familiar with it beyond secondary sources at best. In today's religious landscape, for instance, the Arianistic Jehovah's Witnesses would be heretics, founding their heresy, as they do, on Scripture; the Mormons are arguably not because they are an entirely different religion with their own texts and teachings even if given a Christian gloss.

Context: Grossetesse was too early and too English to be involved with the Holy Office, but he was a highly influential churchman and perhaps one of the smartest men in England in the time. One of his priorities was church reform, and one of his ideas was to establish a (small-'i') "inquisition" into the Church in England, as far as clergy education, abuses, heresies, etc.

Any thoughts would be most welcome.

Answer 1

I do not have a answer about your quote, just an issue about the definition which may help or not.

What I find strange in your quote is that it is not clear that the heretic must have been catholic before, or at least believe generally in Christ. Jews also may have beliefs or opinions based on or derived from Scripture, but they can not be heretics.

St Thomas' Summa has its own definition (from the same century), besides a more detailed explanation than your small quote.

Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

The modern definition also looks similar (from CCC). note the word post-baptismal

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Also, both St Thomas and the modern CCC make clearer that the error must be about important matters of faith. The expressions "dogmas" or the modern formula "truths that must be believed with..." look more precise than just generically stating "the teachings of Christ"

In short, I have 2 reasons to prefer St. Thomas' definition.

It is possible that your quote has an immediate context where its meaning is made clearer, just as it is with St Thomas?

And, are you sure your quoted definition was really important at its time? I would guess St Thomas was more relevant.

About Mormons: the CDF has officially declared their baptism invalid. They didn't explain why officially, but published an article in the Osservatore Romano which extra-officially explains why, it is mainly because Mormons don't believe in the Trinity

==> Mormons are not christians, regardless of what they think about the bible. So, the question 'are mormons heretics?' is not so relevant.

about "contrary to the teachings of Christ" x "contrary to the Sacred Scriptures"

They are different, yes, and both much worse than St. Thomas definition. "teachings of Christ" might be a vague expression to mean the full revelation, Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition, although I would not expect a protestant translation would go on this direction. Yes. But it is not enough. Both expressions are not precise enough.

As St. Thomas explains, to be a heretic there must be denial of a defined dogma, not just of a common belief or a widely followed custom. heretic does not mean a wrong, weird, stupid, totally batshit crazy, or minority belief. Without requiring the denial of a dogma, heresy accusations would fly around every time someone disagrees over any doctrinal, historical, or praxis issue.

Now, a very wild guess: Grossetesse definition would be less bad if his broader context excluded pagans and jews from the discussion a priori. If someone has the full original text, this may be checked.

Answer 2

There was no one proper or good or better definition of heresy at the time, except perhaps by raising that a heresy in those days means whatever the Catholic Church or its representative on the ground deemed inadequate, with the added twists that the Pope's primacy over the Catholic Church wasn't recognized until well after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and in some cases a King might step in to get the finger pointed at some inconvenient group. Take for instance the Knight Templars, who got accused of heresy so the King of France could pocket their wealth. (They cleared their name recently.)

To put Grossetesse's thoughts in more context, Wikipedia has a helpful -- and very long -- list of heresies according to the Catholic Church that gives a flavor of the kind of intense theological debates that went on in the Medieval era (and later). The theological debates at the time were many and raging, and it was not unheard of to have rulers that ended up considered heretics. The Lombards, for instance, supported the Arianism heresy. Also, and in addition to the more famous crusades against the Saracens, there had been plenty of crusades against Christians -- including some in the 13th century. Sometimes heresies were purely theological in nature, but there also are examples (such as the Templars mentioned further up) where it was purely realpolitik at play.

Another point to keep in mind is that the Catholic Church at the time did not in any way resemble what it looks like today. The Papal State was a powerful country. More so even by virtue of having branches in other countries. Its thin veil of religiosity gave it a lot of clout. But don't make the mistake of thinking it was the haven of morality that it tries to pass off as today. (It miserably fails to be, I should add, in the event anyone forgot that a notorious micromanager was in charge of problems such as pedophile priests before he took the helm). One of the worst ever popes might have been John XII. He reigned in the mid 10th century, and basically turned St Peters into a brothel for European Elites. He also reportedly raped hundreds of nuns and pilgrims, and, in an effort to remain in power when he shocked Otto I, he ended up threatening to excommunicate anyone who attempted to depose him.

Answer 3

To me the interesting thing about Grosseteste's definition in the Latin form quoted above is the standard by which the teaching is judged i.e. it has to be "contrary to Holy Scripture." That is not the same as "contrary to the teaching of Christ." Many heretics (e.g. Lollards) would have claimed that they were not teaching anything "contrary to Holy Scripture." If the "teaching of Christ" is not defined as being "contained in Holy Scripture and only to be found in Holy Scripture" the two definitions have very different meanings. So if "what is happening here?" is the question, I'd say there is a chance that there is a theological reason for a version different to that which Grosseteste seems to have actually written to have been circulated in English.