Originally published in 1938, Hilaire Belloc’s The Great Heresies still holds up fairly well as a good introduction to historic heresies such as Arianism and Albigensianism. Belloc was a devout Catholic in the pre-Vatican II era, but his description of the Reformation is relatively even handed. Perhaps he does emphasize financial over religious reasons in explaining the support Protestantism received, but the desire for Church property was an important factor in securing the new religious establishment. His treatment of Islam as a heresy is intriguing.
Again, this is a good introduction, and should serve as a spur to further study.

The Great Heresies has the most lucid and clear understanding of Islam I have ever read. It is very prophetic how mr. Belloc, more than 100 years ago, predicted rise of Islam and how it is constantly at war with western civilisation. It is must read for all people with the open mind. Also his descriptions of other heresies is allso very clear and to-the-point. I necer knew how much these teachings where dangerous for our civilisation. A great read!

What would be an otherwise interesting read quickly becomes a tiresome groan-fest as the author lays his apologetics on so thick as to drown any reasonable expectation of patience from readers not sharing the same religious outlook.

There is much rich history to be found in this topic, hence why I read all I can on the subject, but any such historic value is lost due to the biased nature of the author and leads one to wonder which facts found within are being skewed and to what extent. At the very most it serves as a good example of an alternate perspective held by others on the topic - however that alone is not enough to warrant recommending it.

Wonderful book by Mr. Belloc. A pleasure to read just for the unadulterated polemics.

The Great Heresies spells out clearly the gravest threats to Christendom. Written in the old-style without footnotes, Belloc rips through history with a passionate zeal for Catholic truth.

Belloc is not a thorough modern historian, nor is it necessary to agree with him to enjoy his books. He is fast to read as well as a breath of fresh air.

Filled with uncommon facts or unfashionable opinions that one rarely comes across in contemporary history.

Belloc’s chief heresies that have been chosen for description more or less comprehensively cover the major “enemies” of the Church since inception at Pentecost.

First, the Arians pulled back from the “pure” doctrine of the Trinity holding out for Christ second in power to the Father, but creature nonetheless.

Then the Mohammedans stormed in from the dessert tribes of Arabia sweeping through the Levant conquering half the decaying Roman Empire.

Very interesting to note: conquered Christians often submitted to conversion not for religious reasons, but rather for the financial forgiveness of debts that is part of Islamic law.

More importantly, I cannot fathom why the following fact is never reported in the news media:

“Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history – September 11, 1683”. (70-71).

Seems somewhat important to current events, but hardly anyone is aware of the significance of the date behind 911 for world history.

The Battle at Vienna as well as the Battle of Mohacs were the breaking points in the historical conflict between Mohammedanism and the West.

Vienna is the closest Islam ever came to conquering Europe on 911 . . .(Belloc wrote this in 1938). That fact was worth reading this book alone.

Belloc continues the narrative with the Albigensian Crusade against the Gnostic sect in France, extinguished for threatening the vitality of the Church.

Next, the Reformation challenged the authority of Church governance.

Finally, the modern phase opened the flood gates to private opinions of all sorts.

Belloc’s book is good informal history, very easy to read.

I think a lot of people expect something different from what this book gives them. If you want something that categorically deals with heresies and refutes them, you want St Alphonsus Ligori's History of Heresies and Their Refutation.

This is a very interesting book, and a lot more useful to the average person than the aforementioned work. This is because it deals with the heresies it addresses through means of the mindset held by those who profess it and the conditions in which it emerged. Belloc is clever in that he doesn't attempt to argue with theological premises, which is more befitting of a church doctor like the aforementioned St Alphonsus. Instead, he points out these errors and material conditions, making you aware of the occasions to this heresy rather than the blunt, often impersonal error.

The great thing about it is that you can see yourself in many of the patterns in thought he describes because they are present in all of us to some extent. Now knowing the occasions, you can act on yourself.

In particular, I found his parts on Arianism and Modernism very interesting, as they are seemingly two opposite poles. Arianism being an over rationalisation of Christ and the Godhead, whereas Modernism is the abandonment of reason entirely. In particular, I think the section on Modernism is a must-read for everybody, catholic or not catholic.

He is prophetic in how he saw the Modern heresy develop, in all its pompous irrationality, sexuality and especially its blunt cruelty. We see it reign as we speak, although we now have far more tools to fight it than Belloc ever did.

Overall, well worth the short read.

His historical dialectic and clear vision of the future is unparalleled, as far as historical and philosophical movements go and his assessment of them in terms of what exactly has happened or is happening right now is truly fascinating.

Belloc at his best. A gift for my entire life ... I love this man.

First, I have an extensive review here with long quotes: http://corjesusacratissimum.org/2014/...

But more briefly: Belloc proves himself to be a prophet here. For although written in 1938, how uncannily relevant it is today. This is not to say I agree or approve of everything in this book - the categorisation of Islam as a heresy seems lacking to me. But with Belloc, I hardly care ... I owe him so much and even when I disagree with him, he is still profoundly insightful and enjoyable to read.

His historical dialectic and clear vision of the future is unparalleled, as far as historical and philosophical movements go and his assessment of them in terms of what exactly has happened or is happening right now is truly fascinating.

Interesting. Published in the 1930s by an author who was definitely influenced by the time and place he lived. By today's standards, this work would be seen as racist and highly controversial, . That being said, Belloc did have some interesting insights and foresaw things that we are seeing in our world today.

Several times I was tempted to put this down unfinished, but I did read it to the end. To understand the present, we must understand the past and study the views of those who came before us. Doing that in the context of the time and place they lived is the challenge, but is necessary to get a rich understanding.

Belloc was a staunch supporter and firm believer in Catholicism. He clearly believed the path to happiness and peace could be found in the Church and the ideals it upholds. He predicted the breakdown of Christian culture would negatively impact society as a whole. Is he correct? Time will tell.

Unrated.

I cannot really rate this book because I disagree with > 90% of the ideological and theological portions of it. Reading this book is kind of like reading Breitbart News from the 30’s. It is written by someone full of arrogance and bigotry. However, the historical portions of the book are well-written, and I actually learned quite a bit of history from it.

Ideologies aside, Belloc knows his history. This book chronicles the rises of, what Belloc considers, the five great Heresies to the Catholic Truth: Arianism, Mohammedanism (Islam), Albigensianism, Protestantism, and the “Modern Attack” (agnosticisim and atheism). The falls of two of these heresies (Arianism and Albigensianism) are also chronicled. The technical (non-ideological) analyses of the geopolitical forces are insightful, and on the whole, quite balanced. For example, Belloc fully acknowledges the corruption in the Catholic Church before and during the Reformation. I also find his technical analyses of the Islamic expansion (e.g. the technological prowess of Arabian forces) quite interesting.

Another example is regarding the economical ascent of Protestantism; Belloc wrote:

“in the Protestant culture (save where it was remote and simple) the free peasant, protected by ancient customs, declined. He died out because the old customs which supported him against the rich were broken up. Rich men acquired the land; great masses of men formerly owning farms became destitute. The modern proletariat began and the seeds of what we today call Capitalism were sown. We can see now what an evil that was, but at the time it meant that the land was better cultivated. New and more scientific methods were more easily applied by the rich landowners of the new Protestant culture than by the Catholic traditional peasantry; and, competition being unchecked, the former triumphed.
...

But the great, the chief, example of what was happening through the break-up of the old Catholic European unity, was the rise of banking.

Usury was practised everywhere, but in the Catholic culture it was restricted by law and practised with difficulty. In the Protestant culture it became a matter of course. The Protestant merchants of Holland led the way in the beginnings of banking; England followed suit; and that is why the still comparatively small Protestant nations began to acquire formidable economic strength. Their mobile capital and credit kept on increasing compared with their total wealth. The mercantile spirit flourished vigorously among the Dutch and English, and the universal admission of competition continued to favour the growth of the Protestant side of Europe.”

This book has very little pretense. And Belloc thinks and writes in absolutes:

“There is no such thing as a religion called ‘Christianity’ - there never has been such a religion. There is and always has been the [Catholic] Church, and various heresies proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church’s doctrines by men who still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals…

No, the quarrel is between the Church and the anti-Church - the Church of God and anti-God - the Church of Christ and anti-Christ.”

Among the five heresies, Belloc seems to harbor the most hatred for Protestantism. Inexplicably, he attributes all modern ills to the Reformation, and particularly to Calvin:

“Though the iron Calvinist affirmations (the core of which was an admission of evil into the Divine nature by the permission of but One Will in the universe) have rusted away, yet his vision of a Moloch God remains; and the coincident Calvinist devotion to material success, the Calvinist antagonism to poverty and humility, survive in full strength. Usury would not be eating up the modern world but for Calvin nor, but for Calvin, would men debase themselves to accept inevitable doom; nor, but for Calvin, would Communism be with us as it is today, nor, but for Calvin, would Scientific Monism dominate as it (till recently) did the modern world, killing the doctrine of miracle and paralysing Free Will.”

It is difficult not to laugh at how ridiculous these claims are.

Later in the book regarding atheism, Belloc more particularly argues that because the Reformation invited men to reject the authority of the Church and to use his own reasons to determine his doctrine, it led to the rise of atheism because men can now also use reason to reject the existence of God entirely. That is an argument I have never quite heard before. And I give him props for the entertainment value alone.

In all, this book is an interesting read for its historical perspectives, whether you agree with them or not. Much like listening to Steve Bannon speak, parts of it are batsh*t crazy, but some parts are actually somewhat profound if you ignore the crazy stuff.

Belloc is great because he is unafraid of making broad, challenging arguments that tackle the fundamental points at issue. The Great Heresies fundamentally sees religion as culture-defining and that heresies - deviations from Catholic orthodoxy - therefore introduce profound cultural changes as well as religious changes. One of his best chapters is not really about a heresy - it's "the Modern attack" which attempts to tackle the anti-Christian ideologies of the modern age, and is quite perceptive and in places, prophetic.

His treatment of Islam as beginning as a Christian heresy is actually very convincing.

Hillaire Belloc is similar to G.K Chesterton in that the quality of their prose outweighs and allows one to traverse the bias. Whereas Chesterton is sappy, sometimes coming of as desperate, Belloc is assertive and direct. By no means does this make the latter be less fanatical, but only that he is decent enough not to weaponize pathos.

My problem in reading this book lies with the inundation of history, which in its plain form is delivered with best intent — in sufficient quantity to convince not just the gullible — yet in such an procedural way that it presents meager literary value, which even with their underlying narrative, can’t be fully vindicated.


P.S The more I think about G.K. the more sickened I feel. There’s a word in Sundanese we call “giung”, which in the more ubiquitous Javanese is same as “enek”. It means when something is so disgustingly sweet and/or savory that you feel nauseous — for example if you guzzled a bottle of cherry syrup, you’d call it “giung” and puked straight after. The feeling usually takes time to build up, sometimes minutes, maybe even hours. Now the reason why I’m explaining this is because there’s no English equivalence, yet if I were to pick a close string of words that represents the feeling it’d be “vomit inducing saccharine” which incidentally encapsulates how I feel about G.K.