Heresy-Catholic vs Protestant definition

[Cat]

I’ve noticed that this has come up quite often in various threads all over this Board.

Many Catholics consider Protestantism heresy.

Many Protestants take grave offense to this.

I’ve seen so many threads on this Board where Protestants are horribly upset, angry, and hurt by this term heresy, to the point where they leave the Board.

I don’t think this is good, because the Catechism admonishes Catholics to maintain dialogue with Protestants whenever possible. If calling them a heretic drives them away from us, then we need to decide whether we are appropriate in our behavior. If we are using the term differently than Protestants, then we especially need to be careful about throwing the word around.

It kind of reminds me of the debate surrounding the “n” word. There is a big difference between the way white people and black people perceive this word. Should it even be used at all by anyone?

In the same way, there is a difference in the way that Catholics and Protestants view the word “heresy.”

I grew up evangelical Protestant. It seems to me that being called “heretic” was simliar to being called “sex offender” or “murderer” or “whore” or “bloody” (for UK people). As Protestants we saw the term as something extremely negative and horrible, and would never use the term unless we were referring to demons from the pit.

So to call a Christian a “heretic” or to label their beliefs as “heresy” would be to call them “non-Christian” and worse, “devil worshipper.” This would be an insult to God, who through His grace saves us.

Protestants do not grow up learning about “the gnostic heresy” and “the Nestorian heresy” and all the other heresies that Catholics discuss with cool intellectual detachment.

In fact, now that I am Catholic, I get the impression that to Catholics, heresy is an intellectual thing, a veering from the norm. There isn’t the horrible insulting evil connotation to the term that Protestants give it. In fact, it seems that Catholics can be heretics, and still be considered saints. (e.g., Origen).

I realize that Catholics do not want to compromise the truth in order to be politically correct. But I think that perhaps it would be better to find another way to correct errant Protestant beliefs rather than labelling their beliefs as “heresy.” I’m not sure that this really helps the Protestant to find their way home.

Could we get some discussion going on how Catholics define and understand the word “heresy” and how Protestants define and understand it? Perhaps this would help us all to “get along” better.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s a good section in the Catechism under the section on the 1st Commandment:

Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

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."11

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I dont know what to say to the above. I never really heard the term until I came here. I actually laughed when I was called a heretic for the first time. I have pretty thick skin though. I have to to be able to put up with my hubby’s side of family.

Being negative to anyone about anything will never win them over. Gosh I mean if I said the CC was the whore of Babylon(which I dont believe BTW)–would you convert? NO of course not.

I treat people with respect and share the truth in love and that is where my responsability ends. The rest is up to God

Both sides should always be positive and never throw out anything derogatory in nature because you never know if someone will take offense.

Let’s face it–the HERETIC—evens sounds harsh when said.

We dont need to be calling people names to make our points. Im sure all of us would agree. It is a matter of self-control. Some of us have it some need to work on it.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t think that name-calling is productive either, but technically, those who deny the Real Presence and Transubstantiation would be considered heretics, according to the Catechism.
This would cover a large contingent of Protestantism.
The words, “Heresy” and “Heretic” are not meant to be derogatory or vicious. Direct and frank, yes, but derogatory, no.
Peace.

 

[rr1213]

Let’s be honest here. Catholics believe that Protestant teachings are heresy to the extent that they depart from Catholic teachings…at least with regards to any teachings encompassed by the deposit of faith.

Likewise, Protestants believe that Catholic teachings that depart from Protestant norms are heresy. Many Protestants believe that the teachings of other Protestants are also heresy.

So, we’re all heretics depending on your particular viewpoint.

Still, actually calling somebody a “heretic” or his beliefs “heretical” usually does little to advance the cause of evangelizing such person, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.

 

[dbacks5439]

I look to Luther and other protestant reformers as being both heretical and schismatic, but not protestants today. Luther had the fullness of Truth, and gave up some of it, including papal authority. I see protestants today as being wanderers, people who genuinely seek the Truth but for whatever reason distance themselves away from the Catholic Church. So no, I do not consider mainstream protestants as being heretical nor schismatic. Those groups which are really out there I consider as being just plain stupid IMO.

Mainstream protestants=not heretical

“Out there” protestants=extremely in need of our prayers.

 

[elvisman]

I look to Luther and other protestant reformers as being both heretical and schismatic, but not protestants today. Luther had the fullness of Truth, and gave up some of it, including papal authority. I see protestants today as being wanderers, people who genuinely seek the Truth but for whatever reason distance themselves away from the Catholic Church. So no, I do not consider mainstream protestants as being heretical nor schismatic. Those groups which are really out there I consider as being just plain stupid IMO.

Mainstream protestants=not heretical

“Out there” protestants=extremely in need of our prayers.

Great point.

 

[Cat]

The Catechism makes it clear in P 2089 that heresy is
obstinate denial, not just denial

The dictionary defines obstinancy as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion.

If a person denies our arguments, that does not make the person heretical. It means that our arguments have failed to persuade that person. To that person, our arguments are not reasonable.

To change one’s beliefs is not a a light thing. It is very hard to embrace a teaching as truth when all of your life, you have been taught that it is “untruth.”

Most intelligent people will investigate thoroughly before embracing something as truth, lest they fall into error.

This is not obstinancy, it is wisdom.

Obstinate denial would be if someone says, “You have persuaded me that your teachings are true, but I still refuse to believe them.”

I do not believe that we can, as humans, discern “obstinancy” in another human. We do not know what is in that person’s heart. We don’t know if they have become convinced of the truth, or if they still see the arguments as unreasonable.

Therefore, I don’t think any of us have the right to label anyone as “heretic.”

 

[Ilroy]

From OP:
In fact, it seems that Catholics can be heretics, and still be considered saints. (e.g., Origen).

CAT, for your information, Origen was in heresy for a time but was shown the error of his thought and reformed himself, therefor he was no longer in heresy.
Oddly enough, this could very well have happened to folks like Luther and Zwingley etc…only God knows whether they reformed before they died.

 

[mark_a]

In the same way, there is a difference in the way that Catholics and Protestants view the word “heresy.”

I grew up evangelical Protestant. It seems to me that being called “heretic” was simliar to being called “sex offender” or “murderer” or “whore” or “bloody” (for UK people). As Protestants we saw the term as something extremely negative and horrible, and would never use the term unless we were referring to demons from the pit.

So to call a Christian a “heretic” or to label their beliefs as “heresy” would be to call them “non-Christian” and worse, “devil worshipper.” This would be an insult to God, who through His grace saves us.

Protestants do not grow up learning about “the gnostic heresy” and “the Nestorian heresy” and all the other heresies that Catholics discuss with cool intellectual detachment.

In fact, now that I am Catholic, I get the impression that to Catholics, heresy is an intellectual thing, a veering from the norm. There isn’t the horrible insulting evil connotation to the term that Protestants give it. In fact, it seems that Catholics can be heretics, and still be considered saints. (e.g., Origen).

I realize that Catholics do not want to compromise the truth in order to be politically correct. But I think that perhaps it would be better to find another way to correct errant Protestant beliefs rather than labelling their beliefs as “heresy.” I’m not sure that this really helps the Protestant to find their way home.

Could we get some discussion going on how Catholics define and understand the word “heresy” and how Protestants define and understand it? Perhaps this would help us all to “get along” better.

I wouldn’t use the “h” word.

I move that we substitute the “ss” label. Catholics don’t believe it, the “ss” folks are proud of it. Everyone wins!!!

 

[kleary]

“In fact, now that I am Catholic, I get the impression that to Catholics, heresy is an intellectual thing, a veering from the norm. There isn’t the horrible insulting evil connotation to the term that Protestants give it. In fact, it seems that Catholics can be heretics, and still be considered saints. (e.g., Origen).”

Origen is not a “saint”.

Ken

 

[Bennie_P]

Before I came into full-communion (all baptised Christians are technically catholic, small c) the worse thing to call me would be a reprobate. Now that I’m Catholic big “C”. I define an heretic basically someone that teachs something that conflicts with or rejects any part of the Nicene Creed. :getholy: (I give some leave way for the “and the Son” debate between the Orthodox and Rome.and I pray that my non-Catholic brethren will learn to understand “apostolic” the way Catholics do.)

 

[Andromeda_Organ]

I look to Luther and other protestant reformers as being both heretical and schismatic, but not protestants today. Luther had the fullness of Truth, and gave up some of it, including papal authority. I see protestants today as being wanderers, people who genuinely seek the Truth but for whatever reason distance themselves away from the Catholic Church. So no, I do not consider mainstream protestants as being heretical nor schismatic. Those groups which are really out there I consider as being just plain stupid IMO.

Mainstream protestants=not heretical

“Out there” protestants=extremely in need of our prayers.

by out there, I hope you mean people like Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like?

 

[Bennie_P]

by out there, I hope you mean people like Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like?

I don’t know who Fred Phelps is, but I don’t think it is fair to put Jerry Falwell in the same sentence as Pat Robertson.

Jerry Falwell is a independant fundamentalist, but he isn’t one these health and wealth preachers trying to trigger Armageddon. I don’t like him but I don’t think you should call him a heretic.

 

[Contarini]

Could we get some discussion going on how Catholics define and understand the word “heresy” and how Protestants define and understand it? Perhaps this would help us all to “get along” better.

First of all, I don’t think the term is offensive and I think people who are offended by it are giving in to the silliest form of political correctness. It’s a useful and necessary word.

However, you are right that it means several different things. I actually think that historically it had a more purely intellectual connotation for Protestants than for Catholics, but this has changed in modern times as most Protestants have stopped using the word altogether.

Phillips Brooks, the 19th-century Episcopal bishop (and author of “O Little Town of Bethlehem,” though that’s not relevant here), wrote a thoughtful article on heresy in which he distinguished three senses of the word:

1. The Catholic meaning, indicating the obstinate rejection of the Church’s teaching. A person who makes a theological mistake is not a heretic unless they persist in the mistake after the Church has pointed it out.
2. The classical Protestant meaning, indicating any significant theological error, period. This is therefore a more restrictive and harsher sense of the word than the Catholic one. Since Protestants do not have a Magisterium as Catholics do, Protestants are expected to get it right by a “due use of the ordinary means.” I.e., they will of course pay respectful attention to theologians and church authorities, but they are expected to be personally convinced of all the articles of faith. (Fundamentalism pushes this even further, but Brooks was speaking and I am speaking of Lutheran/Reformed Protestantism stemming from the Reformation.) Since it’s possible that the Church could be wrong, one can’t simply accept something on the Church’s authority. 19th-century Catholics pointed this out as well (though of course with a different agenda than that of Brooks). Orestes Brownson complained that the Presbyterians expected him to adhere fully to all the complex articles of the Westminster Confession, while not claiming any divine authority behind the Confession. Lord Acton argued (somewhat tendentiously, I think, but the point can’t be simply dismissed) that Protestant persecution was more intrinsically intolerant than Catholic, because Protestants went after people simply for being wrong, while Catholics persecuted people for breaking up the unity of Christendom (this is not quite the same issue, but it’s related).
3. The purely moral definition Brooks himself was advocating, which can fairly be called the liberal Protestant definition (it arguably goes back to 17th-century radical Protestantism–John Milton, for instance, said that someone can be “a heretic in the truth”). In this definition, heresy is a wilful rejection of truth, a failure in intellectual honesty. Thus, a person overly concerned with orthodoxy in the first two senses might actually be a heretic in the third sense. Heresy in this sense has nothing to do with being right or wrong, but everything to do with one’s motivations. It’s all about process, not result. It is thus the absolute antithesis of definition 2 and has some paradoxical points of contact with definition 1.

Indeed, one could argue that post-Vatican-II Catholicism, with its doctrine of the “informed conscience” and its broad definition of invincible ignorance, has combined definitions 1 and 3. Liberal Catholics essentially adopt definition 3 outright!

Definition 3 can, of course, lead to incredible self-delusion and folly. The great caricature of this is the liberal bishop in *The Great Divorce, *who claims that he cannot deserve damnation for his rejection of orthodox Christianity because he was sincere–his friend points out that one can quite easily delude oneself to the point that one sincerely believes error, but this doesn’t exclude culpability.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know who Fred Phelps is, but I don’t think it is fair to put Jerry Falwell in the same sentence as Pat Robertson.

Jerry Falwell is a independant fundamentalist, but he isn’t one these health and wealth preachers trying to trigger Armageddon.

Generally speaking, health and wealth preachers are not trying to trigger Armageddon! They have too much to lose. . . .

At one time I would have cast doubt on the idea that anyone was trying to trigger Armageddon. But I just heard from one of my students that there are evangelicals who are buying stock in companies that manufacture computer chips for implantation in humans, with the idea that in so doing they will speed the coming of Antichrist and thus the Second Coming.

If this is true (I hope my informant is mistaken), then these people are as good candidates for damnation as anyone I’ve ever heard of. I can’t think of anything more wicked than deliberately furthering the cause of (what you believe to be) evil in order to bring about the Second Coming.

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cat:

I’ve noticed that this has come up quite often in various threads all over this Board. Many Catholics consider Protestantism heresy. Many Protestants take grave offense to this. I’ve seen so many threads on this Board where Protestants are horribly upset, angry, and hurt by this term heresy, to the point where they leave the Board.

Can you quantify this claim please? How many have left the Board? Of late, I have only noticed one who posted a swan song.

Cat:

If we are using the term differently than Protestants, then we especially need to be careful about throwing the word around.

OK. This is fair enough. This is a step forward toward clarity.

Cat:

It kind of reminds me of the debate surrounding the “n” word. There is a big difference between the way white people and black people perceive this word. Should it even be used at all by anyone?

False analogy. The term ‘heretic’ does not equate to the ‘n’ word.

Cat:

So to call a Christian a “heretic” or to label their beliefs as “heresy” would be to call them “non-Christian” and worse, “devil worshipper.”

The first step should have been to find out what the Church actually says. Instead you are imputing a personal interpretation to the term. How does this forward the goals you have set out for this thread?

Cat:

Protestants do not grow up learning about “the gnostic heresy” and “the Nestorian heresy” and all the other heresies that Catholics discuss with cool intellectual detachment.

There is no justification for anyone to attempt to participate in discussions which involve knowledge of history without actually familiarizing themselves with that history.

Moreover, this is a process. None of us know everything about history. Some know more than others.

One purpose of the boards, afterall, might be to learn? How can folks learn if, no matter what evidence is posted to refute their positions, they simply do not take in what is being posted? How is that participating in discussion?

Is it not instead singlemindedly forwarding an agenda?

Folks don’t always believe things because of the truth of those things. They believe things because there is a payoff for believing them. Uncle Herbivore always used to say: look at the evidence, do the math, and put a price tag on it.

Evidence and math aside, what value do people place on their beliefs and why? What do their beliefs do for them? Examining some questions from this perspective would be infinitely more productive than butting heads on doctrine.

Much emphasis has been placed by many folks on these boards on asking truth questions. There are other questions which can be asked. Hopefully the new philosophy threads will bring to light those other questions.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cat:

In fact, now that I am Catholic, I get the impression that to Catholics, heresy is an intellectual thing, a veering from the norm. There isn’t the horrible insulting evil connotation to the term that Protestants give it. In fact, it seems that Catholics can be heretics, and still be considered saints. (e.g., Origen).

Well, many of the heretics were imho simply folks who were trying their best to apprehend the Divine. They were simply wrong. The wrongness of some ideas were more serious than others. But, hey, being wrong is part of the journey.

Their wrongness btw was about obstinate opposition to community, in many cases, not only obstinate opposition to doctrine.

Herman Melville said that failure is the true test of greatness. Reading the heretics gives us an insight into what it is to be human and fallible. Understanding this can be very enlarging. So, yeah, I would say that for me there isn’t ‘a horrible evil connotation to the term.’

For me each heresy offers an insight; a lesson.

Now some folks just hear the term ‘heresy’ and they jump to all sorts of conclusions and suddenly a major conflagration happens. Because for them there is ‘a horrible evil connotation to the term.’ Perhaps the way they use the term ‘heretic’ is as a put-down.

That kind of emotionalism and projective identification is revelatory. Some self-examination, I contend, would be enormously productive. Why are some folks so touchy at the sound of the word ‘heresy’? Is there an objective need for that touchiness? I don’t think so.

Cat:

I realize that Catholics do not want to compromise the truth in order to be politically correct. But I think that perhaps it would be better to find another way to correct errant Protestant beliefs rather than labelling their beliefs as “heresy.”

And if we called it “apple sauce” eventually someone would take offence to “apple sauce”? Words have a purpose. We can’t equivocate our way to Truth. We can’t because not only do the ends not justify the means but the ends are inherent in the means. Equivocate as a means and you get equivocation as an outcome.

Cat:

The dictionary defines obstinancy as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion. If a person denies our arguments, that does not make the person heretical. It means that our arguments have failed to persuade that person. To that person, our arguments are not reasonable.

Reason is not relative. Faith cannot be unreasonable.

 

[Cat]

Ani Ibi, thank you for your well-thought out comments.

I think they are a bit beyond me, though.

For example, you say that Protestants should familiarize themselves with history before they participate in the discussion.

Perhaps you didn’t understand what I was saying?
Protestants have NO IDEA that this history exists. How are you supposed to familiarize yourself with something when you don’t know it exists?

It is up to Catholics to lovingly point to the gaps in historical knowledge in the Protestant’s background and to fill them in. In the meantime, we have to take into account this lack of knowledge, because it will help us to understand why the Protestant does not have a correct understanding of the word heresy.

As for how many on CAF have been offended, heavens above!–I can’t tell you that! It’s hard enough to keep track of the hundreds of threads on CAF, let alone keep a running tally of posts where Protestants are upset by the use of the word “heretic.”

I can assure you that I wouldn’t have posted this thread had it been just one person.

I’ve also seen this reaction by Protestant to Catholics on non-Catholic forums, and in real life. The word “heretic” evokes a blazing hot reaction from Protestants.

Protestants are offended by the use of the word “heretic.” I was Protestant for over 40 years, and I understand completely how they feel. For a Protestant, being called a “heretic” or being told that your beliefs are 'heretical" is the equivalent of an African-American being called the “n” word.

It is a very hurtful word to Protestants. As Catholics, I think we need to try to step into their shoes and understand that, not criticize them because they don’t know what the real meaning of the word is.
.
Frankly, Ani Ibi and others, I don’t really care what the “true” meaning of the word is. If it hurts, it HURTS.

And my question is, if using this hurtful word is going to drive a Protestant further away from the True Church, is it worth saying? I don’t think so. I think that we should use a different word that has a less hurtful meaning around Protestants.

After all, James says that “if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his sould from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

There are kinder words to use to inform someone that their beliefs are not consistent with the Scripture and the Church than to label those beliefs “heretical” or to call that person or their church “heretic.”

I believe that the Lord will be less concerned with our proper use of words than He will be with whether or not we loved someone and turned them back to truth.

And when that Protestant reaches a point when he/she is willing to take a closer look at the Catholic Church, I daresay it will be because Catholics showed love to them. And it will be at that time, while they are studying Catholicism, that the Prortestant will learn the true meaning of the word “heresy” and realize that it doesn’t have the horrible connotation that they grew up with as Protestants.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Cat:

For example, you say that Protestants should familiarize themselves with history before they participate in the discussion.

Did I single out Protestants? No. I did not. Please do not put words in my mouth. :tsktsk: Thank you. This is what I actually said:
Ani Ibi:

There is no justification for anyone to attempt to participate in discussions which involve knowledge of history without actually familiarizing themselves with that history.

And I did not say “before they participate in the discussion.” I said this:
Ani Ibi:

Moreover, this is a process. None of us know everything about history. Some know more than others. One purpose of the boards, afterall, might be to learn?

Cat:

Perhaps you didn’t understand what I was saying? Protestants have NO IDEA that this history exists.

Some Protestants have no idea that this history exists.

Cat:

How are you supposed to familiarize yourself with something when you don’t know it exists?

Ah! Me thinks this is a far more profound question than you realize.

When the Europeans first came to NA, the First Nations could not see them because the FN had no experience of large ships. As soon as the Euros disembarked into small boats, the FN could see them because the FN had first hand experience of small boats.

Similarly, the Euros could not see bison. Instead they saw a kind of deer because their experience was of deer.

After a period of first-hand experience, the FN could see large ships and the Euros could see bison.

So can we assume that after a period of first-hand experience on Catholic Answers that visitors with no experience of pre-Reformation history will begin to see that it exists?

If so, then can you quantify how much time that first hand experience of pre-Reformation history might take? I ask this because there is another consideration which must be balanced here.

When does an inability to ‘see’ pre-Reformation history (due to lack of first-hand experience) become singlemindedly promoting an agenda?

We can agree that some people do not see history because they have no firsthand experience of it. Correct? But do some others not see that same history because they don’t want to see it or because it challenges their own theories?

Also, I find it difficult to believe that pre-Reformation history is not taught in schools. Very very difficult to believe.

:ehh:

Cat:

It is up to Catholics to lovingly point to the gaps in historical knowledge in the Protestant’s background and to fill them in.

And you are suggesting that Catholic apologists do not this?

Cat:

In the meantime, we have to take into account this lack of knowledge, because it will help us to understand why the Protestant does not have a correct understanding of the word heresy.

According to you, we already understand why they don’t: because they can’t see it. Their own first hand experience has not led them to the mountaintop from where they can gaze wondrously upon it.

Cat:

As for how many on CAF have been offended, heavens above!–I can’t tell you that!

If you can’t tell us that, then why bring it up?

Cat:

It’s hard enough to keep track of the hundreds of threads on CAF, let alone keep a running tally of posts where Protestants are upset by the use of the word “heretic.”

You made the following claim, did you not?

Cat:

I’ve seen so many threads on this Board where Protestants are horribly upset, angry, and hurt by this term heresy, to the point where they leave the Board.

To which I asked:
Ani Ibi:

How many have left the Board?

Lord Kelvin said: to measure is to know. Therefore, if one is to point to the numbers of folks who leave the Board, one must have some idea of what those numbers are. Otherwise why bring up the numbers?

continued…