I'm wondering if we need some discussion about inclusion in this category. I mean, are the Old Believers heretics or merely schismatics? There's an important difference, right? Typos may be heresy for writers, but I'm not sure they count for other folks. Ecumenism may well be an ecclesiological heresy if it means the branch theory, but is this really what most Orthodox mean when they speak about "ecumenism"? (Usually it seems to me to mean something like "talking to other people".)
I suspect for some of these things Category:Disputed issues might be more appropriate. Otherwise just about every opinion in church life will end up being framed as heresy!
Maybe we should restrict this to classic heresies? Or someone should attempt a definition of what "heresy" means. In fact, I think we'll have difficulty keeping things neat and clean here...
I'm just worrying aloud, but does anyone else have suggestions?
- Heheheh. The Typos is not shorthand for "typographical errors." :) Read the entry! It was a heretical document, since it forbade the teaching of the Orthodox faith, and was opposed by two great Orthodox Fathers of the Church.
- In any event, the idea I had for the category is that articles included in it might not necessarily be heresies in themselves but were addressing the issue of heresy. WRT the Old Believers, IIRC, some of them do in fact have divergent beliefs, including the abolition of the priesthood.
- Whether a given teaching is heretical or not can be addressed in the article. I don't think inclusion in the category should mean anything more than that the article is about the issue of heresy in general or a particular heresy. Ecumenical Councils are not, of course, heretical, but they're usually about heresy. --Rdr. Andrew 06:14, 12 Feb 2005 (CST)