Heresy and Excommunication ipso facto

[ethelzguy]

On the issue of defining/declaring heresy, I would offer this…

If I steal $20. from your purse at a dinner party, I am a thief. That is indisputable. However, I can not be punished as a thief unless I have been appropriately charged, convicted, and sentenced.

I would think that the same premise would apply here. Someone may preach a heretical viewpoint. That might make them a heretic, per se. However, as the laws of heresy are promulgated by the Church, is it not for the Church to make any formal pronouncement that and individual is a heretic and excommunicated?

Does the Church authorize the laity to declare someone to be a heretic and excommunicated? If so, what is the process? Is someone to be excommunicated on MY say-so?

 

[ethelzguy]

---

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

Not “personal” as “between me and you”…but personal as in how any one individual interprets Church documents and teachings.

Is it your position, that if you observe someone acting or preaching heresy, as you interpret it, that you are entitled to declare them a heretic, and thus excommunicated?

 

[Walking_Home]

Not “personal” as “between me and you”…but personal as in how any one individual interprets Church documents and teachings.

Is it your position, that if you observe someone acting or preaching heresy, as you interpret it, that you are entitled to declare them a heretic, and thus excommunicated?

---

The documents are well self explanatory. A heretic declares him/her self a heretic by the very act of promoting the heresy. The excommunication occurs via the very act of the heresy.

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

---

The documents are well self explanatory. A heretic declares him/her self a heretic by the very act of promoting the heresy. The excommunication occurs via the very act of the heresy.

Which anyone who is publicly preaching heresy would probably know already, right? That they know and continue to preach it anyway just means that they really don’t accept the Church’s teachings in the first place and aren’t all that concerned what others (even the Vatican) think of it. For example, some will say something like, “The Vatican says ‘X,’ but that’s not really right–that’s not what Jesus is saying in the Scriptures,” or “The Vatican says ‘Y,’ but that’s not necessarily right; the best you can do is what your conscience tells you.”

Wouldn’t it be a dangerous not to criticize such thinking?

I am reminded of this from the CCC:

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

 

[Aramis]

Be wary, however…

many who put emphaisis on the “automatic excommunication” for heresy also reject the changes in doctrine in the last 100 years.

Automatic Excommunication is also the basis of sedevaticanist claims that the papacy is empty.

The sede’s theory is that Paul VI was a heretic, and thus not pope… at least not after encyclical ___ (which one varies; I’ve seen several different claims)… Several more reject John Paul II, rather than Paul VI.

 

[cam100]

Is it your position, that if you observe someone acting or preaching heresy, as you interpret it, that you are entitled to declare them a heretic, and thus excommunicated?

I realize this was kind of addressed to another poster, but it’s a good question. Looking back at the OP:

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.”

Based on this info, a person has to have pertinacity to be a heretic, which

consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed.

How does an observer KNOW that this condition exists? In others words, how would the observer KNOW that that person in question KNOWS that he/she is holding onto an idea that is contrary to Church teaching? That could be quite difficult to establish.

 

[ethelzguy]

---

The documents are well self explanatory. A heretic declares him/her self a heretic by the very act of promoting the heresy. The excommunication occurs via the very act of the heresy.

So then, what is the point of this thread? You state that the documents are self explanatory.

Theft is self-explanatory. Murder is self-explanatory. Speeding is self-explanatory. Yet it takes an official action for someone to be convicted and sentenced with regard to the above.

I repeat my earlier question…

Is it your position, that if you observe someone acting or preaching heresy, as you interpret it, that you are entitled to declare them a heretic, and thus excommunicated?

 

[SFD]

On the issue of defining/declaring heresy, I would offer this…

If I steal $20. from your purse at a dinner party, I am a thief. That is indisputable. However, I can not be punished as a thief unless I have been appropriately charged, convicted, and sentenced.

I would think that the same premise would apply here. Someone may preach a heretical viewpoint. That might make them a heretic, per se. However, as the laws of heresy are promulgated by the Church, is it not for the Church to make any formal pronouncement that and individual is a heretic and excommunicated?

Does the Church authorize the laity to declare someone to be a heretic and excommunicated? If so, what is the process? Is someone to be excommunicated on MY say-so?

You haven’t understood it yet. Read the OP.

SFD

 

[SFD]

How does an observer KNOW that this condition exists? In others words, how would the observer KNOW that that person in question KNOWS that he/she is holding onto an idea that is contrary to Church teaching? That could be quite difficult to establish.

The same way he might know the heretical view exists…by external words and actions.

SFD

 

[Walking_Home]

So then, what is the point of this thread? You state that the documents are self explanatory.

Theft is self-explanatory. Murder is self-explanatory. Speeding is self-explanatory. Yet it takes an official action for someone to be convicted and sentenced with regard to the above.

I repeat my earlier question…

Is it your position, that if you observe someone acting or preaching heresy, as you interpret it, that you are entitled to declare them a heretic, and thus excommunicated?

---

Yes murder is self-explanatory – the act of murder makes a person a murderer—whether the murderer is brought to justice and convicted —or not. Even if the murderer is not convicted because of some deficiency in the prosecution — the person is still a murderer.

 

[thistle]

I realize this was kind of addressed to another poster, but it’s a good question. Looking back at the OP:

Based on this info, a person has to have pertinacity to be a heretic, which How does an observer KNOW that this condition exists? In others words, how would the observer KNOW that that person in question KNOWS that he/she is holding onto an idea that is contrary to Church teaching? That could be quite difficult to establish.

If a Catholic publicly declares they are pro-choice then you would KNOW they are a heretic.

 

[Walking_Home]

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!
**

---

Here is a document by Pope Leo XVIII —Satis Cognitum. It is from the Vatican site. It contains information concerning heretic/heresy.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

 

[steve_b]

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

The Catechism says this about excommunication

1:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1463 (480 bytes ) preview document matches
3 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1463.htm 96%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

2:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2272 (580 bytes ) preview document matches
in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2272.htm 96%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2322 (290 bytes ) preview document matches
27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

Re: heresy (cont)

 

[steve_b]

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!

(Cont)

Re: Heresy

:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 466 (926 bytes ) preview document matches
6 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/466.htm 97%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

2:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2089 (438 bytes ) preview document matches
89 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
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2089.htm 95%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 467 (Size: 1K ) preview document matches
to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/467.htm 95%http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

4:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 817 (717 bytes ) preview document matches
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
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/817.htm

,

 

[Pam_Folbrecht]

So then, what is the point of this thread? You state that the documents are self explanatory.

The purpose as I see it: (1) To instruct anyone who is lacking basic information about what our faith teaches regarding the definitions of heresy and excommunication, and (2) to help us consider how we might charitably apply that information in our own lives.

This is Catholic Answers, right? Well, the thread provided us with some answers!

Thanks for all the helpful links that were provided!

 

[SFD]

ethelzguy:

However, as the laws of heresy are promulgated by the Church, is it not for the Church to make any formal pronouncement that and individual is a heretic and excommunicated?

This is incorrect. See below:
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”.

Do you see your error now?

SFD

 

[Just_Lurking]

If a Catholic publicly declares they are pro-choice then you would KNOW they are a heretic.

Not quite. If a Catholic publicly declares that there isn’t anything wrong or immoral with having an abortion, then you would know they are a heretic.

However, if a Catholic publicly declares that they don’t think that abortion should be criminalized, then they are dissenting from Church teaching, but they are not committing heresy.

 

[ethelzguy]

If a Catholic publicly declares they are pro-choice then you would KNOW they are a heretic.

Would this be heresy? Or sin?

 

[ethelzguy]

Do you see your error now?

SFD

So, you assert that you are both qualified and authorized to declare someone to be in heresy and thus excommunicated.

That being said, just how do you (as laity) propose to enforce said excommunication(s)?



Good Luck

 

[ethelzguy]

The purpose as I see it: (1) To instruct anyone who is lacking basic information about what our faith teaches regarding the definitions of heresy and excommunication, and (2) to help us consider how we might charitably apply that information in our own lives.

As I stated in post #59, good luck enforcing any laity claimed excommunications !!

Herein lies perhaps one of the biggest “crises” in the Church today…Laity, who after reading some documents, feel that they are an authority on Church matters.

The fact remains, that regardless of who you believe to be a heretic and excommunicated, you are powerless to enforce it.