Panarion 21
Popular Heresies of Our Day
Table of Contents
Introduction (go to start of this section)
Heresies and Responses, in alphabetical order (go to start of this section)
Anasynedism (go to)
Barbarokomastism (go to)
Loulekanitis (go to)
Let me begin with the title. It comes from the Greek (Πανάριον, "Medicine Chest"), and I admit I stole the name from St. Epiphanius of Salamis, much in the tradition of St. John Damascene. For each of them, as well as other heresiologists, describe errors common in their day or previous to their day. I add the number "21" in reference to the century in which I write about these distressing errors.
I do not attempt to re-write the ancient heresies. I have rather decided, on this web page, to address some heresies as they come to me. Most of the names, which I post in dark blue, I have invented myself. Names are important, indeed, worth fighting for, worth dying for; but the more interesting part is the description of the heresy and the subsequent response.
If you have anything to suggest or add, please find me on my "Contact me" page (click here), and I would be most delighted to hear from you. You may provide corrections, suggestions or humor which could be of advantage to this page on my web site.
The following heresies are found in the order in which they have been written, the latest at the bottom.
Etymology: From Greek, anti-, "in place of, against," and syneidesis "conscience"
Description: The heresy popular today among clergy who love the Church but only in a mediocre way, more interested in political advantage with whomever they perceive to have leverage or power over them. It asserts that, any priest who is an associate pastor of a parish, may perpetrate whatever abomination which the parish pastor commands him to do, for he may tell his conscience that the moral responsibility for his actions is not his own, but rather that of the wicked priest who has told him to perpetrate the given misconduct. It is the heresy that says, "Just do it; it's on him, not on you."
Refutation: The responsibility of the conscience lies within a man for those deeds which he does freely. It can happen that a man may be forced, coerced, in which the culpability of his conscience is lessened; but convenience or expediency in parish or diocesan politics cannot constitute the equivalence of coersion. The martyrs gave their lives rather than so much as say, for example in the Protestant persecutions of the Catholics in post-reformation England, that the King were the head of the Church instead of the Pope. Death before sin! Furthermore, it is never in accord with right reason or the Faith to do evil that good - in this case, political expediency - may come of it. Furthermore, the conscience is the interior "voice" of a person, and cannot be substituted for any exterior voice, such as the voice of a parish pastor who serves sin instead of God. Furthermore, the conscience, being the intellect, is inalienable. Furthermore, the object of the judgment of conscience is the moral quality of an act; and no matter what the reason he may have, such as an oppressive parish pastor or a desire to climb ecclesial ladders, these ulterior motives of his judgment of conscience do not alter or affect in any way the objective moral quailty of his action. A priest should prefer to die, like the martyrs, than to be an Anasyneidist.
Further reading: CCC 1776-1802; GS 16; DH 3 § 2.
Etymology: From Greek, barbaros, “pagan” and komastes, “reveler, carouser, dancer ”
Description: The heresy of approving of the Lord of the Dance, a song of worship to the Hindu god Shiva which has passed itself off as, and deceived many, a Christian hymn. There is some odor of analogy between barbarokomastism and the Hicetae's (see St. John of Damascus, De Haeresibus, n. 87).
Refutation: See my article on this evil ditty here. Links to further reference materials, including to the text itself, are found therein.
Etymology: lekane (f.) dish; lou-o, v., to wash; -itis is attached, rather than my more common suffix -ism, because the ravings of those who suffer from it are more indicative of an illness than of an error of rational thought.
Description: Not few priests of weak minds assert the following: “If the lay faithful are good enough to hand out the wine, they are good enough to do the dishes afterwards.” This is how some American priests have responded to Bishops who attempted to impose the Church’s norm, that the purification of the sacred vessels after Mass is to be done by the priest (or those clergy named in liturgical law). They refused to obey, and this was their clever response.
What they mean by this is understood by the context to which they apply it: the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass. The formula is admittedly complex, making it easy for weak minds to embrace. The term “hand out the wine” means to serve as the extraordinary minister of communion of the Blood of Christ. The term “do the dishes” means the ritual purification of sacred vessels after the sacrifice is celebrated and communion is distributed.
This assertion defends the theologically indefensible practice of the ritual and habitual purification of the sacred vessels after the distribution of communion by the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion instead of by the clergy.Refutation: This refutation has two parts. The more technical part will be left for last.
First part of the refutation:
It is not unusual for effeminate men to resort to emotional blackmail to get their way. The agenda pursued by such perverse clergy is to destroy the faith. The method here used is to give their debater only two options: to be the good guy who agrees with them, or to be the wicked, nasty man who disagrees with them. Therein lies the emotional blackmail, for the effeminate one forces the issue with no consideration of whether his position is true.
The emotional blackmail happens in this way. The buzz words “the laity are good enough” suppose that any contrary opinion despises laity with arrogance exceeding that of Satan’s own. And of course, who would ever want to be seen as arrogant like that? Yet the real question at hand is, “should the laity purify?” It is not “Is so-and-so good enough?” Indeed, the Archdiocese of Detroit is full of many clergy heretics and dissenters who by office are appointed to purify at Mass; yet the author of this article knows hundreds of laity far more holy than any of these wicked priests. But it is not the office of the laity to purify, so they should not. They are better, morally speaking, than these corrupt clergy; yet still it is not their office to purify.
In other words, by saying “good enough,” the argument slips to the question to the arbitrary judgment of character of the persons involved. Those who, therefore, defend such an assertion reveal themselves as immensely judgmental of others.
The Church reserves the offices of performing certain rites not based on one man’s judgment of “how good” another man may conduct himself, but rather based on what a man is. The sacrament of Holy Orders confers a character on a soul, bestowing faculties (as happens also in Baptism and Confirmation). If therefore a man is a member of the ordained clergy, then he may purify at Mass, even if he is not in the state of grace; the reason is that he is a priest. Even then, other Canonical or liturgical norms may apply, impeding him from doing so, but always because of a man’s office in the Church, and never because of whether someone in the Church thinks that man is good enough or not.
The laity should not purify, because in doing so they give themselves communion. They should not purify, because it is a part of the ritual, public worship of God which is an integral aspect of the sacrifice of the altar, and this is reserved for the clergy, because they have received the sacrament of Holy Orders. Finally, they should not purify, for the Church says so, and the obedience of faith should be sufficient weight in this matter.
Second part of the refutation: The assertion under study is really a syllogism, which can be broken down in a way similar to the previous point:
(Major, “if”): The lay faithful are good enough to hand out the wine
(Conclusion, “then”): They are good enough to do the dishes afterwards
What is missing is, of course, the minor premise. Following the laws of the syllogism (in this case, a Galenic to be precise), the only possible minor premise is:
(Minor): The handing out of wine is done by those who do dishes afterwards.
(Translated): Communion is given by those who purify.
Here the question is begged. For the argument attempts to prove that extraordinary ministers should purify; but it requires this assertion as a proof of the argument. Therefore, whoever says such an assertion is a superficial and idiotic fool who does not think about what he is saying. (Note: The words “superficial,” “idiotic” and “fool” are each meant by its own denotation, and not by its common passionate connotation.)
Furthermore, there is another problem of logic. The term “good enough” implies an entirely different logical argument, namely:
(Major): The laity are X;
(Minor): All that is X is good enough to distribute Communion;
(Conclusion) Ergo, the laity are good enough to distribute Communion.”
There are two errors with this argument:
a. No where in any official Church documentation is the ministry of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is there any discussion or consideration of whether someone is good enough. This is called the fallacy of begging the question, where assumptions are made to the argument or its validity in some specious, tricky or dishonest manner.
b. What is “X”? The middle term is undefined, therefore it doesn’t really conclude properly.
But then again, no one should ever expect a lib to think coherently.
What is really more at stake here, which cannot be demonstrated strictly but which is obvious to all, is anticlericalism. These priests who refuse to conform to this norm of the Church are so afraid of exercising their priestly office in the face of the laity, worried about what a small number of very proud laity will do or say and at what a volume. Also, it seems that these priests are worried about criticism of their own vain persona and would prefer to be disobedient than to obey under the criticism of those laity who arrogantly dare take to themselves ritual services which good priests tremble to perform. My advice? Let them criticize: you, priest of God, do what’s right, even if Solome demands your head on a silver platter (cf. Mt 14:1-12).
Cf. Another article on this topic, here.
4. [More heresies will be named and posted later.]
Etymology:
Description:
Refutation: