Difference between Heresy and Fallacy?

[RichSpidizzy]

Dictionary.com defines them as:

Fallacy :

1. A false notion.
2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
4. The quality of being deceptive.

Heresy :

1. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
2. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
   (emphasis mine)

So is my understanding correct that in order for something to be a heresy, it must be supported by a member of the Church? (notice my emphasis of the definition of heresy) for example: If a priest were to say that the Pope is not infallible when speaking on matters of faith or morals, that would be a heresy. However, if Billy Graham were to say it (which I’m sure he does), it would be constituted as a fallacy?

If I’m wrong, what’s the difference???

 

[Della]

What you are talking about is not the difference between fallacy and heresy but between formal and material heresy.

Let’s take your example of the priest and Billy Graham. The priest is a Catholic who ought to know the truth. If he declares the pope is not infallible in matters of faith and morals and will not back down from that position, he would be guilty of material heresy.

Billy Graham, OTOH, is a Christian because of his trinitarian baptism, but since he is not a Catholic, the things he does not hold in common with the Church make him a material heretic. He disagrees with things he never promised to believe, you see.

Here is a link for more information about heresy

 

[RichSpidizzy]

wait a sec, I’m confused here. so you are saying that while Billy Graham would be considered a material heretic in my example, unlike the priest, he would NOT be guilty of material heresy?

Maybe using Billy Graham wasn’t the best example. What if the person wasn’t a Christian at all? Let’s say an atheist said the Pope isn’t infallible on matters of faith and doctrine. Then is it a fallacy?

I don’t understand the difference between formal and material heresy and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for it isn’t clearing it up for me (I’m having a slow mentality day, I think).

 

[vern_humphrey]

RichSpidizzy:

wait a sec, I’m confused here. so you are saying that while Billy Graham would be considered a material heretic in my example, unlike the priest, he would NOT be guilty of material heresy?

Maybe using Billy Graham wasn’t the best example. What if the person wasn’t a Christian at all? Let’s say an atheist said the Pope isn’t infallible on matters of faith and doctrine. Then is it a fallacy?

I don’t understand the difference between formal and material heresy and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for it isn’t clearing it up for me (I’m having a slow mentality day, I think).

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[817](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/817.htm’) 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.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
[818](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/818.htm’) “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.”

We do not normally charge those born into a different religion with heresy. The religion, or the beliefs behind it may well be heretical, but those born into it are innocent of heresy.