Defining 'heresy' and 'heretic...again?

[CassiusLonginus]

What keeps happening to all the threads? As far as I know, the last thing I saw was thistle who said:

"The Church defines heresy in a short and easy to understand way.

CCC 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.”

In other words a Catholic who rejects one or more Church teachings is a heretic."

And then I responded with a ‘thank you’.

This seems to be very pertinent info to the discussion that was happening. Why do threads that don’t get off track disappear? If it was a single problematic post, couldn’t that single post be deleted by the moderator rather than the whole thing?

Anyway, thanks thistle, for putting backing up the statement that a certain bishop, if unrepentent, is a heretic.

Or maybe that’s the problem…maybe we have to qualify everything we say with statements like "if this bishop is unrepentant of this heresy and he does it with full knowledge that that isn’t the Church’s belief, he’d by definition be a heretic’. Anyway…Ridiculous. Locking threads…fine. Deleting everything…? People do put a little bit of thought into their posts, and it’d be nice to have those things stay around (albeit LOCKED) so that there’s something to show for it rather than discouraging traditional posters with this seeming bias. Or perhaps that’s the agenda…? To get all the trads out of the trad forum??? LOL. What a wonderful forum!

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The Church’s definition of heresy is indeed very simple.

A wise Cardinal once said that children often understand concepts that many adults do not. The difference, of course, is that adults know how to rationalize.

 

[SFD]

The Church’s definition of heresy is indeed very simple.

A wise Cardinal once said that children often understand concepts that many adults do not. The difference, of course, is that adults know how to rationalize.

One must be prudent while evaluating heresy and heretics. A Catholic who merely expresses a heretical view is not immediately to be considered a HERETIC. They must be what is called pertinatious and the heresy must be public (in the canonical sense). But that does not mean we must do mental gymnastics to excuse them…if they know the teaching of the Church and deny it…they are to be considered heretics.

"…for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic." - St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice

SFD

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

One must be prudent while evaluating heresy and heretics. A Catholic who merely expresses a heretical view is not immediately to be considered a HERETIC. They must be what is called pertinatious and the heresy must be public (in the canonical sense). But that does not mean we must do mental gymnastics to excuse them…if they know the teaching of the Church and deny it…they are to be considered heretics.

"…for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic." - St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice

SFD

Agreed on all points! It’s certainly not something to be thrown around lightly!

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Thank you, SFD, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Maybe we ought, as I suggested, to put the little “if x and y” disclaimer when discussing this certain bishop, or others clergy like him etc.

It shouldn’t be looked on as “passing judgement” because it’s not my job. However, I can look at an apple (which if it has x and y) and say it’s an apple. I mean, isn’t that what having a conscience is all about? Discerning right and wrong?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Thank you, SFD, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Maybe we ought, as I suggested, to put the little “if x and y” disclaimer when discussing this certain bishop, or others clergy like him etc.

It shouldn’t be looked on as “passing judgement” because it’s not my job. However, I can look at an apple (which if it has x and y) and say it’s an apple. I mean, isn’t that what having a conscience is all about? Discerning right and wrong?

This is what the Church says to do.

It’s not ‘arrogant’ and it’s certainly not a ‘right’ - it’s a duty.

 

[SFD]

Thank you, SFD, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Maybe we ought, as I suggested, to put the little “if x and y” disclaimer when discussing this certain bishop, or others clergy like him etc.

It shouldn’t be looked on as “passing judgement” because it’s not my job. However, I can look at an apple (which if it has x and y) and say it’s an apple. I mean, isn’t that what having a conscience is all about? Discerning right and wrong?

Yes, we needn’t do mental gymnastics to excuse either. The virtue of prudence which I speak of comes from experience and the proper application of Church teaching. It is neither rash nor timid.

"What would be the point of the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the simple layman could not himself apply them directly?" (Don Felix de Sarda y Salvany: Liberalism is a Sin, Chap. xxxviii, p. 203)

SFD

 

[Walking_Home]

Good – informative thread.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

I’ve only been Catholic since April 2006. I’ve done a ton of reading about various aspects of Catholicism before and since then, but I haven’t studied the definitions of heresy/heretic too much (mostly b/c I thought they were pretty self-explanatory).

So, this morning I was wondering this: What exactly does a priest, bishop, etc., have to do/teach in these modern times for the Vatican to quickly (relatively speaking) name him a “heretic” and excommunicate him? Does this ever happen “quickly” nowadays?

Can anyone very generally answer this question in a way that won’t get this thread deleted? (If not, please pm me your thoughts.)

Thanks!

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I’ve only been Catholic since April 2006. I’ve done a ton of reading about various aspects of Catholicism before and since then, but I haven’t studied the definitions of heresy/heretic too much (mostly b/c I thought they were pretty self-explanatory).

So, this morning I was wondering this: What exactly does a priest, bishop, etc., have to do/teach in these modern times for the Vatican to quickly (relatively speaking) name him a “heretic” and excommunicate him? Does this ever happen “quickly” nowadays?

Can anyone very generally answer this question in a way that won’t get this thread deleted? (If not, please pm me your thoughts.)

I don’t think the Vatican excommunicates heretics often these days. A prudent bishop would probably deal with a ‘heretical’ priest by relieving him of parish duties. My guess would be that a bishop would be transferred from his diocese to a less influential post (maybe some office in Rome?) rather than being proclaimed a heretic. Even in the case of a theologian whose writings are not in conformity with Catholic teaching, I think his writings might be condemned as erroneous but it is unlikely that he himself would be called a heretic.

There is a sedevacantist ultra-Catholic preacher who emails me for financial support (no hope of that!). He even went to Australia during the pope’s time there and went around the country giving conferences about his teachings. He is quite well known among those who claim that the NO is invalid. But, as far as I know, he hasn’t been excommunicated.

My feeling is that these people have already excommunicated themselves by their heresy but that the Church wants to make it easier for them to repent and return by not formally excommunicating them or branding them as heretics.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t think the Vatican excommunicates heretics often these days. A prudent bishop would probably deal with a ‘heretical’ priest by relieving him of parish duties. My guess would be that a bishop would be transferred from his diocese to a less influential post (maybe some office in Rome?) rather than being proclaimed a heretic. Even in the case of a theologian whose writings are not in conformity with Catholic teaching, I think his writings might be condemned as erroneous but it is unlikely that he himself would be called a heretic.

There is a sedevacantist ultra-Catholic preacher who emails me for financial support (no hope of that!). He even went to Australia during the pope’s time there and went around the country giving conferences about his teachings. He is quite well known among those who claim that the NO is invalid. But, as far as I know, he hasn’t been excommunicated.

My feeling is that these people have already excommunicated themselves by their heresy but that the Church wants to make it easier for them to repent and return by not formally excommunicating them or branding them as heretics.

Thank you for your level-headed, and practical response.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

What keeps happening to all the threads?

CassiusLonginus:

Or perhaps that’s the agenda…? To get all the trads out of the trad forum??? LOL. What a wonderful forum!

Concerns like this must be brought to the moderator by private message, not posted publicly.

Thread closed.