Heresy and Excommunication ipso facto

[SFD]

You contradict yourself within the bolded statements.

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

First off, I was addressing anyone who might read the OP.

Secondly, I don’t see how there is any contradiction in my statements. Why don’t you just post some authortative source concerning the topic?

SFD

 

[ethelzguy]

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

This is my point about clarifying motives.

I base my perception on what occured over the weekend with a number of threads **that involved like topics and individuals **as seen here.

 

[SFD]

SFD:

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

I am the OP on this thread. I have directly stated my motives for posting it.

Surely, you can accept it.

SFD

 

[maurin]

I base my perception on what occured over the weekend with a number of threads **that involved like topics and individuals **as seen here.

Certainly the heat was turned up to frying on those threads, by some on both sides of the issues being discussed, but not by all those participating on both sides of the issues.

I see no reason that a “new start” can’t be made by leaving behind those perceptions that very well might be wrong. Do you?

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

CradleCath: 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.

I requested a Code of Canon Law when they were handing out the Catechism in my RCIA class, b/c I already had the Catechism. I guess they forgot to get me one, but I’ve since bought one for myself. It’s an excellent resource!

It’s interesting that you mention the teachers giving us a list of books to read, b/c they did not. In fact, that was one thing I suggested on the “evaluation form” at the end of the class.

I’m a big reader and have always loved learning, especially about my Christian faith–and now especially about my Catholic Christian faith. That’s why I do appreciate the forums and the information they provide (when we allow civil discussions to occur).

To Ethelzguy: Thanks for answering my questions!

 

[SFD]

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.

Catholic Doctrine can be held in a simple manner, or with greater knowledge. For example, one may be satisfied with knowing that there are three persons in one God, and seek not to understand more about this dogma. Such faith is perfect, if the submission of intellect, moved by the will, on the authority of God as revealer, is perfect. Or, one may seek to understand this mystery more deeply, either for reasons of piety or so as to aid others to appreciate that the dogma is not at all opposed to reason. In either case the virtue of faith of the subject may well be perfect, and both approaches are solid and piously Catholic. The first is not wrong, and those who criticise the simple faith of a simple and pious Catholic are wrong to do so. The second is not wrong either, and in fact it is a most praiseworthy thing to gain greater knowledge of the faith, and a deeper appreciation of Holy Church’s dogmas. However, and this is critically important, one who seeks to inform others of matters of Sacred Doctrine must take all care that he truly knows the Church’s mind on the matters he is pretending to teach. If somebody is not morally certain he has an adequate grasp of a subject, he should remain silent rather than risk misleading others.

I am merely proposing to look at what the approved sources of the Church teach on this topic. If you do not wish to participate, that is fine as well.

SFD

 

[Fran65]

However, and this is critically important, one who seeks to inform others of matters of Sacred Doctrine must take all care that he truly knows the Church’s mind on the matters he is pretending to teach. If somebody is not morally certain he has an adequate grasp of a subject, he should remain silent rather than risk misleading others.

That is really good advice that I intend to try and act on.
Thank you.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

Originally Posted by SFD:
However, and this is critically important, one who seeks to inform others of matters of Sacred Doctrine must take all care that he truly knows the Church’s mind on the matters he is pretending to teach. If somebody is not morally certain he has an adequate grasp of a subject, he should remain silent rather than risk misleading others.

Fran65: That is really good advice that I intend to try and act on.
Thank you.

Yes, excellent post, SFD!

 

[Walking_Home]

It seems the topic of this thread — fits in with Pope Benedict XVI’s address below.

zenit.org/article-23621?l=english

Pontiff’s Address to French Bishops

You are rightly convinced that, if every baptized person is to grow in desire for God and in understanding of life’s meaning, catechesis is of fundamental importance. The two principal instruments at your disposal - the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Bishops of France - are like precious jewels. They offer a harmonious synthesis of the Catholic faith and they ensure that the preaching of the Gospel is truly faithful to the riches that it contains. Catechesis is not first and foremost a question of method, but of content, as the name itself indicates: it is about an organic presentation (kat-echein) of the whole of Christian revelation, in such a way as to make available to minds and hearts the word of him who gave his life for us. In this way, catechesis causes to resound within the heart of every human being a unique call that is ceaselessly renewed: “Follow me” (Mt 9:9). Diligent preparation of catechists will allow integral transmission of the faith, after the example of Saint Paul, the greatest catechist of all time, whom we regard with particular admiration in this bimillennium of his birth. In the midst of his apostolic concerns, he had this to say: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim 4:3-4). Recognizing the truth of his predictions, you strive with humility and perseverance to be faithful to his recommendations: “Preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season be unfailing in patience and in teaching” (2 Tim 4:2).

 

[I_Believe]

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

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.

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.

SFD

I haven’t been taking sides in the recent bickering over individual heretics, and won’t now, but the OP is what it is, a decent point of reference for those who may not fully understand the Church’s stance.

While I believe heresy is a serious issue, one the Church has been fighting since the first centuries, I prefer to let God and the Hierarchy judge deceased heretics. But as far as those of the living who spread heresy in a manner as to damage souls, intentially of not, then certainly we as catholics have a duty to warn others. Of course we should do it with Humility, Prudence, and Charity as our guide when doing so. The forsaking of Theological and Cardinal Virtues is to place ourselves closer to the heretic than to God Himself.

 

[ethelzguy]

While I believe heresy is a serious issue, one the Church has been fighting since the first centuries, I prefer to let God and the Hierarchy judge deceased heretics. But as far as those of the living who spread heresy in a manner as to damage souls, intentially of not, then certainly we as catholics have a duty to warn others. Of course we should do it with Humility, Prudence, and Charity as our guide when doing so. The forsaking of Theological and Cardinal Virtues is to place ourselves closer to the heretic than to God Himself.

Bravo!

This underscores what I was taught in Catholic grade school. We were taught what a heretic is/was, just as we were taught what a sinner is/was.

The most poignant memory I have of my Catholic teaching(s) is that we are lowly sinners, unworthy of the gift of Christ. While we were taught to “recognize” heresy and sin, weighed against the context of our own unworthiness it was not for us to go about pointing out or accusing those around us. Planks and specks, if you will.

That being said, we most definetely were taught that those “outside the Church” didn’t go to Heaven. We were also taught that if you weren’t baptized you couldn’t go to Heaven. And, of course that “Limbo” thing…which came to fruition when we had a still born daughter.

Lots of harshness in traditional Catholic teaching. But as I reflect, the harshness was to be directed inward, not out.

 

[theistgal]

I think it’s good to know what the Church actually teaches about heresy and excommunication, rather than relying on individual church members’ opinions.

I have a friend who says a priest told her, about 20 years ago, that she was excommunicated because she had been divorced (not of her own choosing). Based on what I know of her situation, I believe this priest was at best honestly mistaken, and at worst speaking to her in anger.

However, having been rather poorly catechised herself (this was the 80’s!) and unaware that she had the option of appealing his judgment, she took him at his word, stopped receiving the sacraments – and eventually stopped going to church altogether.

Carelessly throwing around words like “heretic” and telling other people they’re “excommunicated” when you don’t know all the facts can have devastating consequences in someone else’s life.

 

[rwoehmke]

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

Now this is well and good, but what is the definition of heresy in the new code of canon law? I suspect it may not have changed much if at all, but I don’t know. Isn’t it also important to understand the difference between formal and material heresy?

There is so much to know about the Catholic Faith, that there are many Catholics out there who may deny certain teachings out of ignorance. Are they heretics? Would they be considered excommunicated?

 

[Walking_Home]

Bravo!

This underscores what I was taught in Catholic grade school. We were taught what a heretic is/was, just as we were taught what a sinner is/was.

The most poignant memory I have of my Catholic teaching(s) is that we are lowly sinners, unworthy of the gift of Christ.** While we were taught to “recognize” heresy and sin, weighed against the context of our own unworthiness it was not for us to go about pointing out or accusing those around us. Planks and specks, if you will.**

That being said, we most definetely were taught that those “outside the Church” didn’t go to Heaven. We were also taught that if you weren’t baptized you couldn’t go to Heaven. And, of course that “Limbo” thing…which came to fruition when we had a still born daughter.

Lots of harshness in traditional Catholic teaching. But as I reflect, the harshness was to be directed inward, not out.

---

It could be ethelzguy – that there was something missing in what you were taught. I was taught more in line with the CCC.

CCC
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

Carelessly throwing around words like “heretic” and telling other people they’re “excommunicated” when you don’t know all the facts can have devastating consequences in someone else’s life.

I agree! We should always be careful about using words like “heretic,” especially in public discussion about about specific people.

On the other hand, (and I certainly welcome others’ thoughts on this), I don’t see that as a problem that our relativistic society has today. We’ve gone to the other extreme–that of being very afraid to “judge” or call anything negative by its true name. What naturally comes alongside this is a reconciliation of good and evil (i.e., what is good is called “evil” and vice versa). I see this time and time again in discussions w/ those my age (30s) and younger, and it scares me to death.

That being said, I think using words like “heretic” (charitably and as infrequently as possible, of course) to describe one who teaches heresy (especially publicly) can be very necessary. As many others have said, it is our right and responsibility to protect ourselves and others by calling something by its true name and dealing with it accordingly.

I like this from the CCC:

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it, and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

Now this is well and good, but what is the definition of heresy in the new code of canon law? I suspect it may not have changed much if at all, but I don’t know.

This is from the newer CIC (1983):

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

I highlighted parts I found helpful.

 

[ethelzguy]

---

It could be ethelzguy – that there was something missing in what you were taught. I was taught more in line with the CCC.

CCC
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

I see no disagreement with what I was taught and what you have outlined. However, what I’ve read on other threads in the last few days on this topic don’t exactly gee-haw with your comments here either…

by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so

This stands out in particular. This statement while far-reaching, can also be rather vaguely interpreted. A sin committed by a close friend or relative and personally observed, probably doens’t fit in the same category as a sin committed by someone that I am not acquainted with in a far away place.

 

[ethelzguy]

I think it’s good to know what the Church actually teaches about heresy and excommunication, rather than relying on individual church members’ opinions.

Indeed.

In my generation, “excommunication” is a fate worse than “execution”. Declaring someone a heretic based on personal interpretations and views, and thus ipso facto excommunicated is ground I personally don’t feel qualified to tread.

 

[Walking_Home]

I see no disagreement with what I was taught and what you have outlined. However, what I’ve read on other threads in the last few days on this topic don’t exactly gee-haw with your comments here either…

by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so

This stands out in particular. This statement while far-reaching, can also be rather vaguely interpreted. A sin committed by a close friend or relative and personally observed,** probably doens’t fit in the same category as a sin committed by someone that I am not acquainted with in a far away place.**

---

Lets not lead this thread the way of the others. Lets keep it in general. Now as to the above – when someone makes the sin public —it becomes part of the external forum. Then we can either cooperate with it by not protecting our fellow man from it or we can warn our fellow man of the danger being promoted.

 

[Walking_Home]

Indeed.

In my generation, “excommunication” is a fate worse than “execution”. Declaring someone a heretic based on personal interpretations and views, and thus ipso facto excommunicated is ground I personally don’t feel qualified to tread.

---

I don’t believe what has been said here is “personal”. It reflects what the Church Herself teaches.