Heresy and Excommunication ipso facto

[SFD]

Canon 1325 (1917 CIC) gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, taken from St Thomas:

“a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”

Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. "The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.

The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae.

The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required;

the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court, or by a bishop acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge, and dispensing with the usual procedure.

St. Robert Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in the encyclical Mystici Corporis. There, four requirements for membership are given:

(1)those who are baptized,

(2) who profess the Faith integrally,

(3) who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and

(4) who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication.

Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized.

Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

Heresy is a sin. When it is externally manifest, it is a crime that is punished by the Church. A heretic is ipso facto excommunicated.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ

Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”.

The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”.

SFD

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

Thank you for the very informative post!

 

[ethelzguy]

What is the purpose of these recent threads that so aggressively seek to name ones’ self qualified to declare others heretics?

What is the agenda here?

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

What is the purpose of these recent threads that so aggressively seek to name ones’ self qualified to declare others heretics?

What is the agenda here?

Let’s just explore the topic without questioning peoples’ motives. I am really interested in learning about this, but if we start questioning each other’s motives, people are just going to get emotional…then start bickering…and then get the thread closed. **Let’s just try to learn from each other without arguing!
**

 

[ethelzguy]

Let’s just explore the topic without questioning peoples’ motives. I am really interested in learning about this, but if we start questioning each other’s motives, people are just going to get emotional…then start bickering…and then get the thread closed. **Let’s just try to learn from each other without arguing!
**

Is exploring a topic more practical and direct if we understand each other’s motives, rather than going on fishing expeditions?

There have been a number of threads during the last week or so regarding heretics or who some feel to be heretics.

Are we as laity qualified to point and declare someone a heretic? Is that what we’re after here? To convince ourselves that we are qualified to point and say “HERETIC” ?

Based on the other similar threads, that’s what it appears to be. Hopefully I am wrong.

 

[maurin]

What is the purpose of these recent threads that so aggressively seek to name ones’ self qualified to declare others heretics?

What is the agenda here?

I believe it may be a mistaken notion that the recent threads of this type have an agenda which “agressively seek to name one’s self qualified to declare others [as] heretics.”

A different question that could be asked, though, might be, 'why are there others who wish to deny or suppress the Church’s ageless Teachings on what constitutes heresy?"

Many here, I believe they would agree, might detect there to be a definite agenda on the minds of those who question these types of posts.

 

[michelle_p]

How many threads do the moderators have to close before some people get the message?

What some people are trying to do here is quite obvious.

My thread about the Holy Father’s **Act of Tolerance **got removed because of this obsession with heresy.

But I can’t start another thread about it because it violates forum rules.

 

[maurin]

How many threads do the moderators have to close before some people get the message?

I am not certain if I am correct, but it seems to me that the moderators have closed threads because the issues were not being discussed. People were attacking one another personally.

What some people are trying to do here is quite obvious.

Yes, it is quite obvious that instead of discussing issues, some are assuming and assigning bad motives behind some posts without asking for clarification of those motives.

My thread about the Holy Father’s **Act of Tolerance **got removed because of this obsession with heresy.

I may not be correct, but I think it is quite possible it was closed because of the deplorable way some on both sides of the issues being discussed were speaking to each other.

Stricter moderation in that kind of atmosphere can only be constructive: keeping posters focussed on the issues instead of on their ideas of the motivations of other posters, or on other posters themselves.

 

[michelle_p]

I am not certain if I am correct, but it seems to me that the moderators have closed threads because the issues were not being discussed. People were attacking one another personally.

Yes, it is quite obvious that instead of discussing issues, some are assuming and assigning bad motives behind some posts without asking for clarification of those motives.

I may not be correct, but I think it is quite possible it was closed because of the deplorable way some on both sides of the issues being discussed were speaking to each other.

Stricter moderation in that kind of atmosphere can only be constructive: keeping posters focussed on the issues instead of on their ideas of the motivations of other posters, or on other posters themselves.

My issue here is that the same topic keeps regurgitating even after the moderators have closed the topic multiple times.

Why do some people insist on skirting moderators direction?

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

So, are the points made in the OP “new information” for anyone else? I, for one, never learned these things in RCIA ('05-'06).

Converts? Cradle Catholics? What has been your exposure to these teachings on heresy and excommunication? I’m especially really interested in hearing about your formal instruction in this area (what you learned, where [generally speaking] you learned it, etc.).

Thanks!

 

[CradleCath]

Pam Folbrecht;4220293]So, are the points made in the OP “new information” for anyone else? I, for one, never learned these things in RCIA ('05-'06).

No, they aren’t new information to me & I don’t think that anyone’s Catholic education can be completed by RCIA. Hopefully, the teachers encouraged you to continue your search for knowledge about your faith, gave you a list of books to read, etc. After 12 yrs. of Catholic education & 67 years of practicing the faith…I’m still learning.

Converts? Cradle Catholics? What has been your exposure to these teachings on heresy and excommunication? I’m especially really interested in hearing about your formal instruction in this area (what you learned, where [generally speaking] you learned it, etc.).

Thanks!

I was taught, clear back in Catholic elementary school about heresy. The subject came up quite naturally when we studied the New Testament. I had to look up some of the chapters & verses. that pertain to it, because…though I know the content…I’m not good with the numbers. . One example that I know we talked about is from Paul’s letter to the Galatians 1-16 “If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9). The Apostles preached against innovation.

What Paul did at Corinth he asks every bishop in his own church to do. He instructed Timothy to “war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:18-20).I remember this well, because I remember thinking how AWFUL it would be to have your name(s) engraved forever as a heretic in the Bible…for every generation of Catholics to read until the end of the age.

 

[SFD]

What is the purpose of these recent threads that so aggressively seek to name ones’ self qualified to declare others heretics?

What is the agenda here?

This is the agenda of this thread:

To properly present the Church’s teaching on Heresy and ipso facto excommunication.

I have quoted Catholic sources here and have ventured into no opinion of my own. If you have a problem with this agenda…then you have a problem with the truth.

SFD

 

[ethelzguy]

A different question that could be asked, though, might be, 'why are there others who wish to deny or suppress the Church’s ageless Teachings on what constitutes heresy?"

Who is denying or suppressing the Church’s teaching on heresy?

What I am seeing is people who seem anxious to indulge in calling others heretics.

 

[ethelzguy]

Yes, it is quite obvious that instead of discussing issues, some are assuming and assigning bad motives behind some posts without asking for clarification of those motives.

In post number 3, I specifically asked for clarification of motives, and the response was to be asked to explore the topic without questioning motives.

What gives?

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

What I am seeing is people who seem anxious to indulge in calling others heretics.

I don’t know anything about that. Rest assured, I am not anxious to call anyone a heretic.

Would you like to answer the questions in my last post?

 

[ethelzguy]

This is the agenda of this thread:

To properly present the Church’s teaching on Heresy and ipso facto excommunication.

**I have quoted Catholic sources here and have ventured into no opinion of my own.

If you have a problem with this agenda…then you have a problem with the truth.**

SFD

You contradict yourself within the bolded statements.

You state that you have ventured no opinion of your own, followed by personally attacking me.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

In post number 3, I specifically asked for clarification of motives, and the response was to be asked to explore the topic without questioning motives.

What gives?

I would like the discussion to progress without accusations and “battle.” How about we just ignore motives or perceived motives? Those will be more numerous than the number of posters!

 

[maurin]

In post number 3, I specifically asked for clarification of motives, and the response was to be asked to explore the topic without questioning motives.

What gives?

thank you for clarifying, ethelzguy–taking both of your posts–your first and second-- into account, I was not sure what you were saying.

I agree strongly that a constructive conversation and debate is possible when we ask for clarification rather than to assume or assign intentions behind posts. If we are unsure, I agree with you it is much better to ask, rather than to assume.

It kind of keeps the heat from getting turned up.

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t know anything about that. Rest assured, I am not anxious to call anyone a heretic.

Would you like to answer the questions in my last post?

My recollections of my Catholic upbringing bring to mind our being very rigidly taught what WE were supposed to be doing in our daily lives to make us worthy of the Holy Eucharist (short term) and of Heaven (long term).

To be candid, we were pretty much taught that we weren’t worthy of either. I recall as a child often having a sense of hopelessness.

Things like heresy were indeed, discussed. However the focus was far more on us an individuals and our propensity to sin. We were taught to hate sin, and of course…confession, confession, confession…

I can honestly say, that I don’t recall ever going into depth with regard to judging whether a given living individual was guilty of heresy or being a heretic. As a matter of history, yes. As a matter of going about in the Catholic world, judging others, no.

 

[maurin]

Who is denying or suppressing the Church’s teaching on heresy?

What I am seeing is people who seem anxious to indulge in calling others heretics.

Are you allowing for the possibility that your perception may be incorrect?

This is my point about clarifying motives.