Can a heretic be invincibly ignorant and saved - Martin Luther?

[clem456]

You addressed baptized non-Catholics and specifically modern-day Lutherans.
On the proper usage of the word heretic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10292812&postcount=95

When we take terms from our code of law and apply it to those who are not part of the target audience, it is we who are wrong. Non Catholics are not part of the target audience. Those terms in the law are not meant for them. Non Catholics are not mentioned in Canon Law other than to address the issue of sacraments. Even then, the law is addressing the Catholic and telling the Catholic what to do when such a situation arises.

When we read Canon Law, the question in our head should be, “What does the Church want me to do?”

If whatever is not in there, I must not do.

 

[Brendan]

That is nice, but my definition came from the Catechism, not the CIC.

I am certainly not saying that a Protestant should be subject to a Canonical Court, if that is what you mean

The Catechism is universal.

 

[clem456]

No, you said this:

As such a baptisted non Catholic who denies such a truth would be a heretic

and this:

A Material Heretic would be most modern day Lutherans

Neither usage of the word is appropriate or even accurate.
It’s really not very complicated, intricate dance moves notwithstanding.

No more from me, the Church speaks very clearly on the proper use of the term heretic, what it means, and who it applies to. Nothing you or I say can obfuscate the issue very much.

 

[Brendan]

Neither usage of the word is appropriate or even accurate.
It’s really not very complicated, intricate dance moves notwithstanding. .

No dances involved.

Let’s look at what the Church considers a heretic to be (again from the CATECHISM)

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

So for a modern Lutheran, for example, not to be included in the definion, one (or more of the following must be true)

1. They have NOT actually been Baptized
2. They fully accept all that the Church teaches that must be believed.
3. Any denials that they have are done in a wishy-washy way.

There, a three point proof, one of the simplest in logic.

So which point do you feel is in error?

 

[thistle]

A heretic, by Church definition,“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” CCC 2089

As such a baptisted non Catholic who denies such a truth would be a heretic.

But then we must take a look at culbability. The Church further divides heretics into Formal and Material Heresy.

A Formal Heretic has culbability. Martin Luther would be an example. They knew and then rejected, the teachings of the Church.

A Material Heretic would be most modern day Lutherans, who did not have the education in Catholic teaching that Luther did. Their culbality is reduced to nonexistent

It is separate from invincible ignorance, which is actually a very hard standard to meet, especially in today’s educated world.

I was previously a Methodist. I was not a heretic!

 

[thistle]

No dances involved.

Let’s look at what the Church considers a heretic to be (again from the CATECHISM)

So for a modern Lutheran, for example, not to be included in the definion, one (or more of the following must be true)

1. They have NOT actually been Baptized
2. They fully accept all that the Church teaches that must be believed.
3. Any denials that they have are done in a wishy-washy way.

There, a three point proof, one of the simplest in logic.

So which point do you feel is in error?

That is simply not true. Luther was a heretic because he was a Catholic and rejected the Church and its teachings. Heresy applies to Catholics. Subsequent generations of Lutherans who were baptised and brought up Lutheran were/are not heretics.

 

[TK421]

If you don’t believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, then that means you have some heretical thinking (verb) which would make you a heretic (noun). If you’re a Catholic and protesting from Church doctrine, then you’re a formal heretic, which is something that is performed actively. If you’re a non-Catholic Christian that has heretical views, then you are a material heretic, which is something that occurs passively. All Christians from protestant backgrounds are material heretics to varying extents.

It is not a derogatory term, per se, even though the word might carry a lot of negative baggage with it when it is used in informal conversation. It is what it is.

 

[clem456]

No.
See the above posts. The law of the church applies to Latin Rite Catholics, not to anyone else. Protestants are not heretics. Jews are not heretics. Muslims are not heretics. The word is not properly used there, regardless of whether they fit the definition of a heretic.

This would be like calling a Frenchman a tax evader, because he hasn’t paid his taxes to the US government. He hasn’t followed the letter of our law by paying taxes to the US, but the law doesn’t apply to him because he is not under the law of the US, because, well, for obvious reasons.

 

[IBombAtomically]

Yes, I’d absolutely classify Marin Luther as a heretic because he was properly catechized.

Interestingly enough, Fr. James Martin S.J. refers to Luther as a “Saint” multiple times in at least one of his books. The shocked the heck out of me and I thought that can’t possibly what the Church thinks!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Nobody seems to be addressing whey Luther was a “heretic.”

How about all of the Catholic children abused by priests that leave the Church? Would you be willing to label them heretics also?

The Church throughout history has been abusive in various times and various places, and I wouldn’t be so quick to brand such people that suffered as a result heretics, as many are doing here. There responses to their actions may be wrong, but it was in response to wrong actions on the part of people representing the Church.

 

[thistle]

Nobody seems to be addressing whey Luther was a “heretic.”

How about all of the Catholic children abused by priests that leave the Church? Would you be willing to label them heretics also?

The Church throughout history has been abusive in various times and various places, and I wouldn’t be so quick to brand such people that suffered as a result heretics, as many are doing here. There responses to their actions may be wrong, but it was in response to wrong actions on the part of people representing the Church.

Heresy is rejecting infallible teachings, and not that a person has been tragically abused and walks away.

 

[Brendan]

No.
See the above posts. The law of the church applies to Latin Rite Catholics, .

But we are not talking about Canon Law here, we are talking about the Catechism, which is a statement of what we, as Catholics believe.

We, as Catholics, believe that a person, who, after being Baptized, rejects a teaching of the Church that must be definitively held.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Heresy is rejecting infallible teachings, and not that a person has been tragically abused and walks away.

To expect a person abused by an organization to believe in anything that organization stands for is entirely unreasonable.

 

[GodHeals]

It is separate from invincible ignorance, which is actually a very hard standard to meet, especially in today’s educated world.

Shared on my FB:

friend said, “heard the message of Quran or Bible, thats KNOWING”…

My reply:

My merciful thinking: If a person hears the Gospel, contemplates the reality or truth, fearlessly follows truth wherever it leads, etc. & still doesn’t receive Jesus Christ, but still continues to follow God as they know Him to Be & does the good in their heart, maybe they can be saved. God is the ultimate judge. When does a person become not invincibly ignorant? I don’t know…not sure we can know or what the Church has to further say on the matter.

I just wouldn’t want to be in the above situation and thank God I am not. But we all must remember that everyday we live, we can choose to turn away from God in our thoughts, words, and actions, and therefore must be vigilant of the temptations of the flesh, the world, and the devil.

May God forgive my above theological errors & correct them in the hearts of readers, and above all, save our souls. Amen.

Are my thoughts completely wrong?

 

[thistle]

To expect a person abused by an organization to believe in anything that organization stands for is entirely unreasonable.

Not at all. Walking away because of abuse does not mean rejecting infallible teachings. I don’t see the connection or how you jump to that conclusion.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Not at all. Walking away because of abuse does not mean rejecting infallible teachings. I don’t see the connection or how you jump to that conclusion.

This is simply common sense. I mentioned the child abuse situation simply because it is a modern example that we can all understand, and don’t have to rely on historical examples where details get lost over time . Victims abused by the Church aren’t exacted lining up in droves at masses, nor praising or supporting anything the Church stands for. In many cases the result is not simply rejection, but pure and utter hatred toward the Church. Obviously there are a plethora of examples over history, and not limited to the Catholic Church or even religion in particular.

 

[thistle]

This is simply common sense. I mentioned the child abuse situation simply because it is a modern example that we can all understand, and don’t have to rely on historical examples where details get lost over time . Victims abused by the Church aren’t exacted lining up in droves at masses, nor praising or supporting anything the Church stands for. In many cases the result is not simply rejection, but pure and utter hatred toward the Church. Obviously there are a plethora of examples over history, and not limited to the Catholic Church or even religion in particular.

Heresy has nothing to do with people who are abused and neither does an abused person walk away from the Church because they have rejected an infallible teaching. They are simply tortured by the thought that any priest might do that. That has nothing to do with rejecting teachings. Why would you jump to the conclusion that if an abused person walks away from the Church because of the abuse that such a thing means they are rejecting Church teachings. That is NOT common sense.
Heresy is only about rejecting an infallible teaching.

 

[clem456]

Three different discussions are taking place here.

One is about the word heretic and the proper use of it. The Church plainly speaks on that. Unfortunately the word is obstinately misused by too many people who don’t have the competence to use it. We can say that Martin Luther was a heretic, because competent people in the Church say it is so. It’s a safe bet to say that no layperson should ever claim that another person is a heretic, especially in relation to groups of people, like “Protestants are” or “Lutherans are” or “their beliefs are” just because the catechism defines what heresy is. Again, it’s like us branding a Frenchman a tax evader because he fits the US definition of a tax evader as “one who has not paid his taxes”. Well, a Frenchman is not subject to US law :so the definition does not apply. To rigidly cling to a definition in defiance of Church guidance is foolish. Doing so in relation to our separated brothers and sisters violates charity. Would it be calumny or gossip? I dunno. Which is why the Church speaks the way it does on the matter, perhaps? So that we might deal with others we disagree with truthfully and charitably?

Related to that is whether a person who disagrees with the Church or has fallen away, is invincibly ignorant or culpable,. Only God knows the answer to that for an individual. We can know in a general sense whether someone who is obstinate in denial or rejection is culpable. We can work out our own salvation in trembling and fear but cannot work out the damnation of others. The Church doesn’t do it, why should we? Abuse by Church people really complicates the matter. If I were a Catholic who misleads people or abuses them in some other way, I would be a lot more worried about my own salvation than that of someone I led away from the Church. Really, I have enough trouble being faithful without worrying about the state of someone’s else’s soul, or whether they can fit into the definition of heretic.
But only God has the answer to the question of an individual’s culpability.

Likewise only God knows who is saved. We know what we are asked to believe and do, and the importance of holding fast to our faith for salvation. Wondering about whether others are culpable and/or saved is just speculation.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Heresy is only about rejecting an infallible teaching.

Regardless of abuse that may have caused a chain of events to occur that lead to that rejection, I assume.

 

[thistle]

Regardless of abuse that may have caused a chain of events to occur that lead to that rejection, I assume.

You are digressing now.
If an abused person walks away from the Church rejecting an infallible teaching then that is heresy.
If an abused person walks away from the Church because of the abuse and fear it might happen again that is not heresy.
I don’t understand why you assume all abused people who walk away from the Church reject infallible teachings. What do you have to support that claim?