heresy?

[Hegesippus]

If one believes that women should be priests, does that make that person a heretic? And if so should that person be denied communion?

 

[Loy]

If one believes that women should be priests, does that make that person a heretic?

A person is not a heretic unless he or she has been adequately informed of Church teaching, and has received an adequate opportunity to disclaim the heresy and profess belief in the true Christian doctrine.

And if so should that person be denied communion?
If a person has not been formally excommunicated, a priest has discretion, within certain limitations, to distribute or deny communion to a person who holds heretical beliefs.

 

[Hegesippus]

A person is not a heretic unless he or she has been adequately informed of Church teaching, and has received an adequate opportunity to disclaim the heresy and profess belief in the true Christian doctrine.

And if so should that person be denied communion?
If a person has not been formally excommunicated, a priest has discretion, within certain limitations, to distribute or deny communion to a person who holds heretical beliefs.

I guess the question I shoul have asked is since it is not dogma that women are not allowed to be priests, does that make a person a heretic to believe that women could beceome priestesses? Is heresy a denial of what is infallible, or a denial of certain teaching?

 

[John_Henry]

since it is not dogma that women are not allowed to be priests,

It is dogma. And it is inffallible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I guess the question I should have asked is since it is not dogma that women are not allowed to be priests, does that make a person a heretic to believe that women could beceome priestesses? Is heresy a denial of what is infallible, or a denial of certain teaching?

It is dogma. Heresy is the obstinate denial of dogma. They would be a de facto heretic if they obtinately denied this dogma, yet they are not a de jure heretic until after due ecclesial process, they still obstinately denied the dogma.

They should themselves refrain from recieving communion until they could resolve their doubts and assent to Catholic dogma.

 

[Loy]

It is dogma. Heresy is the obstinate denial of dogma.

The key word here being obstinate. A priest might have some difficulty determining whether a person’s belief is obstinate or not. And hence, with certain limitations, the priest has discretion to deny this person communion.

They should themselves refrain from recieving communion until they could resolve their doubts and assent to Catholic dogma.

Absolutely. But usually someone who holds heterodox beliefs is in some sort of denial. It is truly a unique individual who actually recognizes his or her own obstinancy. I would love to see more priests helping the heterodox to understand their errors.

 

[Hegesippus]

It is dogma. Heresy is the obstinate denial of dogma. They would be a de facto heretic if they obtinately denied this dogma, yet they are not a de jure heretic until after due ecclesial process, they still obstinately denied the dogma.

They should themselves refrain from recieving communion until they could resolve their doubts and assent to Catholic dogma.

could you state your reasons why this is a dogma dave? And does heresy extend to a denial of certain teaching? When someone disagrees with the Pope on non-dogmatic issues is that heresy or sin? sorry for all my questions.

 

[jmcrae]

It would also depend on whether they were teaching it to others, or holding it as a private opinion but teaching what the Church teaches when asked about it.

The person who was teaching it to others would be out of communion with the Church, but the person holding it as a private opinion but not presenting it as Church teaching would be okay.

All of us fall short in some area, and I’m sure we all hold private opinions of some kind that don’t conform to Church teaching. Being mistaken is not the same as being a heretic, though.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

could you state your reasons why this is a dogma dave?

Sure…

The definition of de fide catholica is that it is a teaching which has been constantly and universally taught by the Catholic magisterium. According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma…

The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.” (Introduction)

De fide teachings are infallible immutable dogma, properly so-called. The teaching of the Church which affirms that priestly ordination is reserved only to men is therefore infallible dogma.

John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, affirms this…

the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. (no. 4)

In a Responsum ad dubium, the Holy See furthermore affirmed…

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is ***to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith. ***[ie. *de fide

]

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude,

October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

Thus it seems clear, using principles of Catholic dogmatic theology, that the above teaching is de fide catholica.
continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

I agree that a denial or doubt of dogma due ignorance does not qualify as heresy. However, if such denial or doubt is “obstinate” it necessarily connotes a lack of ignorance.

Assent of intellect and will is required of all Catholic dogmas and doctrines. We have the freedom to subordinate our intellect and will to that of our superior. It may be difficult to do so, but it is nonetheless not impossible. Thus, dissent connotes a obstinate refusal to do so.

And does heresy extend to a denial of certain teaching?

Not according to the definition of heresy given by canon law. Catholic Canon Law states:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.

For lack of a better word, “heterodox” more accurately describes those who cling to that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine (sententia certa, or certain teachings of Catholicism). Those who obstinately deny or doubt Catholic doctrines which are not manifestly de fide still indeed commit sin.

This distinction can be understood in this way…Catholics who refuse to give their assent to de fide dogmas sin against the virtue of faith. Those who refuse to give their assent to non-de fide doctrines still commit a crime, a violation of Catholic canon law, the nature of which is a sin against the virtue of charity.

Catholic canon law states:

Canon 752 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

In short, obstinate refusal to give an “assent of faith” when it is due is a sin against faith (ie. heresy). Obstinate refusal to give a “religious submission of intellect and will” is a sin against charity.

 

[Hegesippus]

Dave, from your last posts, there are infallible doctrines that are not promulgated from the chair or at general councils. Is this correct? IS it a grave sin to be heterdox? the reason I brought up denying communion to those who say women can be priests is because my professor said priests who deny people communion because they believe women could be preists is wrong and the priests should go back to seminary. So in short if someone with full knowledge of the Church’s teachings and why the Church teaches what it does, but stil refuses to accept them should a priest deny that person communion?

 

[thistle]

CCC 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

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave, from your last posts, there are infallible doctrines that are not promulgated from the chair or at general councils. Is this correct?

I think I would word it differently…

Dogma can be infallibly promulgated by the ordinary universal magisterium without necessarily being definitive, that is *infallibly *defined. For example, that Scripture is inerrant is taught in several magisterial texts, as well as from Vatican II’s Dei Verbum. However, it has never been infallibly defined by pope or council. Like priestly ordination which is reserved for only men, it is a Catholic teaching that is immutable dogma infallibly promulgated by the Church, but is de fide catholica, because it is not manifestly de fide definita.

IS it a grave sin to be heterdox?

If by heterodox, you mean obstinate doubt or denial of non-definitive Catholic doctrine, then yes, it is a grave sin, objectively speaking.

Prayer is sufficient for remittance of venial sins. Consequently, Canon law does not prescribe canonical penalties for merely venial sins. However, observe…Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and,** after being warned, persists in disobedience**.
Notice that there can be canonical penalties for those who obstinately disobey canon 752, which obliges Catholics to give their religious submission of intellect and will to Catholic doctrines.

So deliberate disobedience to canon 752 is an objectively grave sin, not merely a venial sin.

the reason I brought up denying communion to those who say women can be priests is because my professor said priests who deny people communion because they believe women could be preists is wrong and the priests should go back to seminary.

The canon that governs the potential of non-admittance to Holy Communion is:Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Consequently, the priest must prudently apply canon 915. How does he know that the person is in obstinate denial or doubt of dogma? Note that it must be manifest grave sin. Mere suspicion is not sufficient.

A recent example of the application of canon 915 is the manifest grave sin of wearing a rainbow sash so as to manifest one’s obstinate denial of Catholic dogma with regard to immorality of homosexual activity.

So in short if someone with full knowledge of the Church’s teachings and why the Church teaches what it does, but stil refuses to accept them should a priest deny that person communion?

If the priest can reasonably conclude that the recipient has met the conditions of **obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin, then he does not have the authority **to give them Holy Commuion, according to canon 915. Consequently, I disagree with your professor.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Before denial of communion, there are some steps the pastor should take:

According to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger…
…when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

1. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
   source]

 

[McKevin]

If one believes that women should be priests, does that make that person a heretic? And if so should that person be denied communion?

I hope this advice from St. Paul finds you doing well:

Titus Chapter 3, Verses 9, 10, and 11: Avoid foolish arguments, genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile. After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.