Definition of "heresy"

[Bonocorium]

I am getting lots of different definitions of “heresy”. What is the real definition?
Which religions are the “heretics” today?

Thanks

 

[1ke]

I am getting lots of different definitions of “heresy”. What is the real definition?

From the Catechism, quoting Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law:

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."

Which religions are the “heretics” today?

We do not call anyone born into an ecclesial communion a heretic. One would have to be a Catholic first in order to be a formal heretic.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Perhaps this article would help:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

 

[Bonocorium]

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

So I should call Evangelicals and Orthodox “schismatics” instead? I saw a forum where several Catholics were calling the Evangelicals as heretics.

 

[1ke]

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

So I should call Evangelicals and Orthodox “schismatics” instead? I saw a forum where several Catholics were calling the Evangelicals as heretics.

You should not call them any of those terms.

 

[bzkoss236]

Most Evangelicals today are not considered heretics because most did not reject the Catholic Church, because they were never in the Catholic Church. The Evangelical faith is heretical, but that doesn’t mean it’s members are heretics.

 

[aemcpa]

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

So I should call Evangelicals and Orthodox “schismatics” instead? I saw a forum where several Catholics were calling the Evangelicals as heretics.

The Evangelical churches are not of Apostolic origin and are therefore not properly called churches at all, and should be considered as qualitatively different from the Orthodox Churches. The Evangelical creed is heretical, whereas the Orthodox creed is orthodox and the churches are in a state of schism. But the Church distinguishes between material heresy (or material schism) and formal heresy (or formal schism), and chooses to apply the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” only to the latter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Most Evangelicals today are not considered heretics because most did not reject the Catholic Church, because they were never in the Catholic Church. The Evangelical faith is heretical, but that doesn’t mean it’s members are heretics.

Just to piggyback on this, this is from an old post:

#1, in order to be culpable of heresy, one must be aware of the trueness of the Catholic faith from which they depart doctrinally. Traditionally, you can see a good definition from Thomas Aquinas:
The heretical tenets may be adhered to from involuntary causes: inculpable ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas. In none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore, one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely subjective or material.In other words, if you are honest in not understanding the Catholic faith as the true faith, you are not guilty of heresy.

Also from Catholic Answers: A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.So if you honestly don’t recognize the Catholic Church as THE Church in the first place, you cannot be guilty of heresy against it.

#2, the Church by no means teaches non-Catholics are outside the realm of salvation. From the Catechism:
CCC#847* Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.*So again, if you are sincere in not recognizing the Catholic Church as the Church Christ established and sincerely strive for truth, you too, can be saved.

 

[TimothyH]

As posted earlier, this is a key point…

obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed

People who are not properly baptized cannot be heretics.

-Tim-

 

[R_C]

You should not call them any of those terms.

 

[kingal86]

"#2, the Church by no means teaches non-Catholics are outside the realm of salvation. From the Catechism:

CCC#847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

So again, if you are sincere in not recognizing the Catholic Church as the Church Christ established and sincerely strive for truth, you too, can be saved."

Isn’t CCC#847 about “invincible ignorance”? I’ve heard quite divergent definitions of how wide the definition of that is, from only applying to members of - say - uncontacted tribes in Brazil or others who have never heard of Jesus or Christianity, through to sentence above or the semi-universalist ideas of CS Lewis in The Last Battle.

One thing that’s always puzzled me about invincible ignorance, is it could be argued the more one learns about the Catholic Faith, mortal sins (since knowledge often necessary to make it mortal) etc. the more at risk your chance of salvation is. Though I’m sure I must have the wrong end of the stick there.

 

[aemcpa]

One thing that’s always puzzled me about invincible ignorance, is it could be argued the more one learns about the Catholic Faith, mortal sins (since knowledge often necessary to make it mortal) etc. the more at risk your chance of salvation is. Though I’m sure I must have the wrong end of the stick there.

You also have more of the means of salvation. To whom much is given, much is expected.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

So I should call Evangelicals and Orthodox “schismatics” instead? I saw a forum where several Catholics were calling the Evangelicals as heretics.

No, we normally call them separated brethren. Unless they want to fight . Our Bible is bigger and heavier than the Evangelicals, but the Orthodox Bible is bigger and heavier than ours, so be watchful of that Please know I’m kidding

 

[MarcoPolo]

Isn’t CCC#847 about “invincible ignorance”?

It is about invincible ignorance - it just means that someone holding a “heretical” view while in s state of invincible ignorance couldn’t be a heretic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One thing that’s always puzzled me about invincible ignorance, is it could be argued the more one learns about the Catholic Faith, mortal sins (since knowledge often necessary to make it mortal) etc. the more at risk your chance of salvation is. Though I’m sure I must have the wrong end of the stick there.

I look at it a little differently. Invincible ignorance could certainly be rare, so obviously, the more you learn about the faith, the stronger you could be. Also, remember, that Catholic theology includes incorporation into the “body of Christ.” And this includes “suffering with Christ.” Our suffering is valuable. As a member of Christ’s body, when we make our suffering an offering, it benefits souls. In fact, our participation in the ultimate suffering of the Eucharist benefits souls everywhere. So in a very real and theological sense, the more people authentically participate in the Eucharist, the stronger is the draw of grace to all souls. That’s at least one reason why it is very important and valuable to draw souls into the Church.