Catholics Embracing Protestants

[ComplineSanFran]

It is one of the many things I find on Catholic Answers Forum that is nothing short of astonishing. We would never use that term in the academy or in the work of dialogue.

Here, people who are very clearly not theologians, canonists, ecclesiologists or ecumenists bandy it about as if we were in the 16th century.

Even people who purport to be citing history are severely out of step with historians who are part of the academy in 2017.

Thank you for this, Father. I am also astonished with the way people on CAF use words that I never hear in either academia or in my interfaith work. Tell me why the terms seem to be so popular - or rather why people here seem to delight in calling people heretics, et al.

 

[rcwitness]

Heresy still exists, whether some people falsely accuse, or some priests shrink away from acknowledging it.

 

[reggieM]

Heresy still exists, whether some people falsely accuse, or some priests shrink away from acknowledging it.

Yes, true. There is a significant difference between heresy and schism. Those terms are valuable and useful in understanding one’s own status in the Church, as well as that of non-Catholics.

What I think happens very often is that people shrink away from the terms and eventually that leads to thinking that errors in doctrine and belief are not important. From that, we have the sin of indifferentism - which is very widespread today.

 

[rcwitness]

No one, anywhere? All priests boldly admonish all sin?

That is something of a strawman, it is simply not conducive to human interaction in the real world to start calling people heretics and throwing labels like that around in discussions. If you have a look at the type of preachers who do so you will find they often create a great deal of heat and not a lot of light. Explaining why you sincerely disagree or differ with someone from another Christian tradition can be done in a more measured way.

The fact that some people can embrace heretics or viciously judge them in various ways doesn’t change the fact that heresy and heretics exists.

I realize the term has a certain negative conotation. I personally don’t use the term much. However, I did use it recently when a priest tried to label something “Liberal” when in reality it was a heresy.

I did get an apology from him, and our relationship is good.

 

[reggieM]

There’s a difference between calling people various things and actually using terms for understanding.

The CCC doesn’t hesitate to use the terms heresy, schism and apostasy. But that is different from the terms heretic, schismatic and apostate. The latter is directed at persons and we should give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

But if a person asked if a certain belief would make him a heretic, then why not tell the truth? Covering up the truth because we don’t like how it sounds is not charitable.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[rcwitness]

Just something I’m pondering. I don’t often see Catholics embracing Protestants with this quote:

Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company." Jesus said to him, “Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” - Luke 9:49-50

As for this OP, I think it’s a good reminder of how to approach various Christians. We should not feel compelled to police those who are doing works of mercy simply because they are not fully embracing Catholic Communion.

Jesus wasn’t addressing heretics, however.

 

[Wannano]

As for this OP, I think it’s a good reminder of how to approach various Christians. We should not feel compelled to police those who are doing works of mercy simply because they are not fully embracing Catholic Communion.

Jesus wasn’t addressing heretics, however.

Hi RC, I am finding your comments here very intriguing however I would like some clarification if possible. In your reference to Catholic Communion are you defining that as something like
“Being a member of and in everyday association with” the Church or is it a direct reference to the Catholic Eucharist?

I am trying to wrap my head around who Jesus would have considered to be a heretic.

 

[Wannano]

There’s a difference between calling people various things and actually using terms for understanding.

The CCC doesn’t hesitate to use the terms heresy, schism and apostasy. But that is different from the terms heretic, schismatic and apostate. The latter is directed at persons and we should give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

But if a person asked if a certain belief would make him a heretic, then why not tell the truth? Covering up the truth because we don’t like how it sounds is not charitable.

Ok, I am up for that. You can answer a question I have longed for a straight answer.

Q. I have learned a lot about the Roman Catholic Church the last two years and I think I have a basic understanding of it. I am not convinced of the truth of several aspects of its practice and feel no conviction to join it. So obviously I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the singular one and only true church but rather see it as a part of the whole Body of Christ. Does this certain belief make me a heretic?

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC, I am finding your comments here very intriguing however I would like some clarification if possible. In your reference to Catholic Communion are you defining that as something like
“Being a member of and in everyday association with” the Church or is it a direct reference to the Catholic Eucharist?

I don’t consider the two to be different, so I meant both a member and someone participating in the Eucharistic meal.

I am trying to wrap my head around who Jesus would have considered to be a heretic.

I believe Jesus considers a heretic to be someone who opposes the faith of the Church. Now I realize that opens another question: What constitutes “the Church”?

We will most likely disagree with that.

 

[Wannano]

I don’t consider the two to be different, so I meant both a member and someone participating in the Eucharistic meal.

/QUOTE]

So your statement then is understood to be: We should not feel compelled to police those who are doing works of mercy simply because they are not Catholic.

 

[ajcstr]

Ok, I am up for that. You can answer a question I have longed for a straight answer.

Q. I have learned a lot about the Roman Catholic Church the last two years and I think I have a basic understanding of it. I am not convinced of the truth of several aspects of its practice and feel no conviction to join it. So obviously I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the singular one and only true church but rather see it as a part of the whole Body of Christ. Does this certain belief make me a heretic?

So, I’m going to attempt this here. This is how Mr. Webster sees it:

Heretic - a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church); especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth The church regards them as heretics.

SO, for instance, if you deny the real presence, that would be considered a heretical belief but YOU may not be a heretic because you are not a baptized Catholic? Martin Luther was considered a heretic because he was a Catholic. I don’t believe the Church today refers to Protestants as heretics though they may hold beliefs that the Church would consider heretical. If that makes any sense (its the way I understand it at least). I’m sure it was different in the 1600’s.

I was also thinking of the JW who also deny the divinity of Christ. You and I would probably agree that that belief is heretical (it didn’t get Arius too far) but again, I don’t think they would be labeled “heretics” unless they were once Catholic.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness;14831519:

I don’t consider the two to be different, so I meant both a member and someone participating in the Eucharistic meal.

/QUOTE]

So your statement then is understood to be: We should not feel compelled to police those who are doing works of mercy simply because they are not Catholic.

Yes, I suppose.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So, I’m going to attempt this here. This is how Mr. Webster sees it:

Heretic - a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church); especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth The church regards them as heretics.

SO, for instance, if you deny the real presence, that would be considered a heretical belief but YOU may not be a heretic because you are not a baptized Catholic? Martin Luther was considered a heretic because he was a Catholic. I don’t believe the Church today refers to Protestants as heretics though they may hold beliefs that the Church would consider heretical. If that makes any sense (its the way I understand it at least). I’m sure it was different in the 1600’s.

I was also thinking of the JW who also deny the divinity of Christ. You and I would probably agree that that belief is heretical (it didn’t get Arius too far) but again, I don’t think they would be labeled “heretics” unless they were once Catholic.

Right, from what i gather, all that talk at Trent about heretics and anathematizing was directed at Catholics who come up with Protestant ideas. It was a effort to put out all these fires started by Catholics who decided to become ‘reformers’.

 

[Wannano]

So, I’m going to attempt this here. This is how Mr. Webster sees it:

Heretic - a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church); especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth The church regards them as heretics.

SO, for instance, if you deny the real presence, that would be considered a heretical belief but YOU may not be a heretic because you are not a baptized Catholic? Martin Luther was considered a heretic because he was a Catholic. I don’t believe the Church today refers to Protestants as heretics though they may hold beliefs that the Church would consider heretical. If that makes any sense (its the way I understand it at least). I’m sure it was different in the 1600’s.

I was also thinking of the JW who also deny the divinity of Christ. You and I would probably agree that that belief is heretical (it didn’t get Arius too far) but again, I don’t think they would be labeled “heretics” unless they were once Catholic.

I appreciate what you have brought forward. Hopefully others will feel free. It is confusing because I have been validly baptized and I understand that makes me a brother in Christ to the CC. So I am a Christian, not a heretic but a Christian with heretical beliefs.

 

[Wannano]

Right, from what i gather, all that talk at Trent about heretics and anathematizing was directed at Catholics who come up with Protestant ideas. It was a effort to put out all these fires started by Catholics who decided to become ‘reformers’.

Has any teaching in the CC nullified any of the anathemas pronounced at Trent that unintentionally entangle those of us caught in the net?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I believe Jesus considers a heretic to be someone who opposes the faith of the Church. Now I realize that opens another question: What constitutes “the Church”?

If you are speaking of the historical Jesus, he was Jewish. I don’t believe they had a classification for heresy.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ok, I am up for that. You can answer a question I have longed for a straight answer.

Q. I have learned a lot about the Roman Catholic Church the last two years and I think I have a basic understanding of it. I am not convinced of the truth of several aspects of its practice and feel no conviction to join it. So obviously I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the singular one and only true church but rather see it as a part of the whole Body of Christ. Does this certain belief make me a heretic?

Hi Wann

Let’s rewind back prior to the incarnation.

If a Jew said, you know, I don’t interpret the Torah like the rest of you. I see circumcision as a spiritual issue, not a physical one. Therefore, me or my son does not need to be circumcised.

Would that person and his son be considered part of the Old Testament “church”? Or would they fall into the heretical camp?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Has any teaching in the CC nullified any of the anathemas pronounced at Trent that unintentionally entangle those of us caught in the net?

What is it that you believe could or needed to be nullified? Specifically?

 

[reggieM]

Q. I have learned a lot about the Roman Catholic Church the last two years and I think I have a basic understanding of it. I am not convinced of the truth of several aspects of its practice and feel no conviction to join it. So obviously I do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the singular one and only true church but rather see it as a part of the whole Body of Christ. Does this certain belief make me a heretic?

It is a teaching considered to be defined and binding on all Catholics that the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church of Christ. So, objectively speaking - yes, you would be a heretic if you believed that “the whole Body of Christ” is something different than the Catholic Church.
Some of those who are outside of the communion of the Catholic Church are considered to be part of the Church by virtue of Baptism.

Whether you are actually a heretic or not depends on what you know, your intention and what your belief is in specific – so I could not say “yes, you are a heretic” based on what you said.

But in terms of what is a heretical belief, to assert that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church that Jesus Christ founded – yes, that is an heretical belief.

 

[ajcstr]

Has any teaching in the CC nullified any of the anathemas pronounced at Trent that unintentionally entangle those of us caught in the net?

No, but please get this. An anathema is not the equivalent of being damned. As far as I know, the CC has never stated anyone was going to hell. What the anathema is basically saying you are not in communion with us. Again, I can only speak to the way it is now. In the 1500 and 1600’s these things were a little more “intense”