Can Catholics call protestants heretics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dominikus28

Guest
I read that in Vatican II, it was established that catholics can’t call protestants heretics, it this true?

Also, if you are a Catholic, are you loyal to two countries (Vatican and country you live in)?
 
Heresy is an obstinate post-baptism denail of some article of faith. Our policy is give people the benefit of the doubt. This is not new teaching. Here’s a catechism entry from 1876:

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are apparently out of their communion with the crimes of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude them from salvation

A. All those sincere people belong to the soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and believing the great fundamental truths of Christianity, and who are prevented from believing it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply because they never doubted, and never had sufficient means of knowing the truth, which they would embrace at once, and with gladness, could they only discover it,*—*all these, we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and will be saved, if they lead good lives and do not violate God’s law.
 
dominikus28 said:
I read that in Vatican II, it was established that catholics can’t call protestants heretics, it this true?
Click to expand...
No.

Only a Catholic can become a heretic. One born into schism or a heretical sect is not a heretic as defined in Canon Law.
dominikus28 said:
Also, if you are a Catholic, are you loyal to two countries (Vatican and country you live in)?
Click to expand...
No.

We are loyal to the Church, not the country of the Vatican.
 
Also, if you are a Catholic, are you loyal to two countries (Vatican and country you live in)?
Click to expand...
If your country/government required you to deny Christ and disobey His vicar on earth, would you stay loyal to your country/government?

Tak
 
Even those who are outside the Church through invincible ignorance are heretics. They are material heretics, but not formal heretics. They hold to a heretical view of Christianity but it is unknown to them. So, materially they are heretics, but formally they are not.
 
“If your country/government required you to deny Christ and disobey His vicar on earth, would you stay loyal to your country/government?”

I could never for any reason deny Christ or His Church. Many people have been put to death by their earthly governments for their love of Jesus Christ. If that made me a traitor to my country I count it a small price for my Lord and Savior who died for me.
 
RTMirage said:
“If your country/government required you to deny Christ and disobey His vicar on earth, would you stay loyal to your country/government?”

I could never for any reason deny Christ or His Church. Many people have been put to death by their earthly governments for their love of Jesus Christ. If that made me a traitor to my country I count it a small price for my Lord and Savior who died for me.
Click to expand...
Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher are two examples of many 🙂
 
dominikus28 said:
I read that in Vatican II, it was established that catholics can’t call protestants heretics, it this true?
Click to expand...
Don’t use Vatican II as the dividing line. A heretic is one who persists in an obstinate post-baptismal denial of some important aspect of faith. By that definition all Protestants are heretics.

But however, not all Protestants are formal heretics. They were born into their faith tradition and were never Catholic to begin with, so they are only “materially” in heresy, so it wouldn’t be right or fair to call them “heretics.” Only Catholics who lapse into Protestantism are heretics in the formal sense.
Also, if you are a Catholic, are you loyal to two countries (Vatican and country you live in)?
Click to expand...
No. Being a Catholic doesn’t make one a citizen of the Vatican City.
 
tptram said:
If your country/government required you to deny Christ and disobey His vicar on earth, would you stay loyal to your country/government?

Tak
Click to expand...
Loyalty to the Pope is not the same as allegiance to the Vatican City State. The Vatican state can dissolve for all I care, but the Holy See will always remain.
 
I don’t think calling someone a heretic, who is and has always been outside the Church, accomplishes much. We can try to Evangelize them and hope that God moves in them to change their hearts. If we don’t try to bring them into the Church, they will likely suffer a fate far worse than the human imagination can comprehend. We should also remember too that quite a few Catholics are in this same situation. They reject one or more teachings of the faith. They also face the same fate if they don’t repent and return to Christ’s Church.
 
jimmy said:
Even those who are outside the Church through invincible ignorance are heretics. They are material heretics, but not formal heretics. They hold to a heretical view of Christianity but it is unknown to them. So, materially they are heretics, but formally they are not.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have no problems with Catholics saying that Anglicanism is heretical. I have a problem with Catholics misrepresenting Anglicanism or assuming that just because I’m not Catholic therefore I am hostile to Catholicism. I became Anglican to get closer to Catholicism!

Edwin
 
I don’t think that catholics can call protestants “heretics” for some of the reasons mentioned above. I’m especially referring to the VII statement and the quote from the catechism.

As I understand it, Martin Luther could have been called a heretic because, presumably, he knew better. Lutherans today cannot be called heretics as they are faithful to what they know and have been taught.

The technical distinctions between formal and material heresy are, in my opinion, singularly unhelpful and uncharitable in any inter-faith discussion.
 
Fred_4 said:
I don’t think that catholics can call protestants “heretics” for some of the reasons mentioned above. I’m especially referring to the VII statement and the quote from the catechism.

As I understand it, Martin Luther could have been called a heretic because, presumably, he knew better. Lutherans today cannot be called heretics as they are faithful to what they know and have been taught.

The technical distinctions between formal and material heresy are, in my opinion, singularly unhelpful and uncharitable in any inter-faith discussion.
Click to expand...
It is the facts. They hold a heretical doctrine. They are [material] heretics.
 
Contarini said:
Exactly. I have no problems with Catholics saying that Anglicanism is heretical. I have a problem with Catholics misrepresenting Anglicanism or assuming that just because I’m not Catholic therefore I am hostile to Catholicism. I became Anglican to get closer to Catholicism!

Edwin
Click to expand...
What?? That’s incoherent even written down. You really shouldn’t have abandoned the faith of your fathers like that. Think of the suffering your ancestors went through if they were Catholic to remain so rather than treating the king as if he was the successor to st. Peter. Anglicans can all of a sudden say that they are Catholics all they want, but it’s not superficial things like “high” robes and music that make a church Catholic, it’s the apostolic succession and full communion with the see of st. Peter!! Stop being ignorant of this please!!! Get away from that church founded by a tyrant and his monastery destroying cronies! If you were brought up an Anglican it would be one thing, but to leave the Catholic church to become one is ridiculous! Don’t be blinded from the truth!:eek:
 
McDonnell said:
What?? That’s incoherent even written down. You really shouldn’t have abandoned the faith of your fathers like that. Think of the suffering your ancestors went through if they were Catholic to remain so rather than treating the king as if he was the successor to st. Peter. Anglicans can all of a sudden say that they are Catholics all they want, but it’s not superficial things like “high” robes and music that make a church Catholic, it’s the apostolic succession and full communion with the see of st. Peter!! Stop being ignorant of this please!!! Get away from that church founded by a tyrant and his monastery destroying cronies! If you were brought up an Anglican it would be one thing, but to leave the Catholic church to become one is ridiculous! Don’t be blinded from the truth!:eek:
Click to expand...
Oh for crying out loud, this thread is almost a decade old. Seriously, how do people even conjure these threads from the dead?

Contarini is a respected member of this forum community, among one of the most learned, and this treatment of him is abhorrent. He is hardly the most suitable person to be lashed out at like this, especially on someone’s inaugural post.
 
porthos11 said:
Oh for crying out loud, this thread is almost a decade old. Seriously, how do people even conjure these threads from the dead?

Contarini is a respected member of this forum community, among one of the most learned, and this treatment of him is abhorrent. He is hardly the most suitable person to be lashed out at like this, especially on someone’s inaugural post.
Click to expand...
Well I would respect you more if you tried to seek the truth and have a debate rather than acting as if some people are so ‘respected’ and ‘learned’ that no one can argue against their position with them on a forum. I beg your pardon for having challenged the learned and respected gentleman’s opinion! What a terrible sin!! I don’t care about who you might hold in high esteem, I’m only genuinely expressing my view in disagreement with someone. Besides, I’m sure he quite likes people genuinely disagreeing with him in good faith.

If you don’t agree with me, which you have every right not to, you should argue against my points sincerely rather than being dismissive on a spurious basis.
 
That first point is true enough actually. If it is the case that he was an evangelical or something and then became an Anglican, then I’d apologise for the misunderstanding but still say that Anglicans are Protestants, and only churches in full communion with the Pope are Catholic.

How is it reductionist and odd?
 
Contarini said:
Exactly. I have no problems with Catholics saying that Anglicanism is heretical. I have a problem with Catholics misrepresenting Anglicanism or assuming that just because I’m not Catholic therefore I am hostile to Catholicism. I became Anglican to get closer to Catholicism!

Edwin
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry about going mad at you actually- I thought that you meant that you had been a Catholic and had become an Anglican in order to somehow get closer to Catholicism. 😊
 
McDonnell said:
Well I would respect you more if you tried to seek the truth and have a debate rather than acting as if some people are so ‘respected’ and ‘learned’ that no one can argue against their position with them on a forum. I beg your pardon for having challenged the learned and respected gentleman’s opinion! What a terrible sin!! I don’t care about who you might hold in high esteem, I’m only genuinely expressing my view in disagreement with someone. Besides, I’m sure he quite likes people genuinely disagreeing with him in good faith.

If you don’t agree with me, which you have every right not to, you should argue against my points sincerely rather than being dismissive on a spurious basis.
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying your initial post immediately attacking him is unacceptable. Many of us here respectfully disagree with Contarini, and he respectfully disagrees with others. But not once has he ever posted in a tone even remotely approximating yours. It’s not your position I’m attacking, it’s your manner. You haven’t even formed a relationship with the man, and you condescend to him like that?

No. You do not get to treat him that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top