Heretics?

[larry85704]

Hello

The Catholic Church as a vast body of beliefs and teachings that define the Catholic Faith. There is a vast body of writings that, to my knowledge, are not accepted by the Church. An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.

I seem to remember that people were burned at the stake for being heretics, by the Church. One of the reasons they were burned was they professed to have special knowledge of God. I must admit I appreciate the way the Church dealt with these people. Perhaps if the Church dealt with pedophile priests the same way, for the special knowledge they had, things would be different. But, I wander.

Today we are discovering things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries are historically accurate and do add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus, the Jews and the early Church. I think most people accept that. It is very easy to read something from the internet, about how some Scriptural mystery’s solution is revealed, and believe it. It becomes part of our Faith. This is a formation of our Faith from sources outside the established Church. It is special knowledge.

Our Church tolerates, even encourages, diversity. You can be a good Catholic and be charismatic, or a traditionalist, or something in the middle. I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible. Then they used their knowledge to confound the local priest, who didn’t. Made the Church look bad. Any thoughts on this? What would you use for your Faith formation that you are sure would not be special knowledge?

 

[StCsDavid]

I’m not sure I’m tracking with your question as it seems to imply that faith is founded in physical evidence whereas I’m more inclined to believe that faith is the realization of all that is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) While using the historical, critical method is useful to an extent, it’s not the end all for understanding faith or God, both of which are largely out of the realm of full comprehension of our limited, human intellect.

That’s the short answer. I’ll let Thomas Aquinas handle the long answer.

 

[larry85704]

I agree. Faith is the realization of all that is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. But isn’t the idea that we will be raised from the dead supported by Jesus’ resurrection? Didn’t Paul, as in the Apostle, say that without the resurrection or faith would be in vain?

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

A bit of correction. The Church has never burned people at the stake; you will find no papal bulls demandng that Martin Luther be burned, no synod of bishops calling for John Calvin to be put to the torch. Yes it is true that members of the Church have burned heretics, but it is important to know that in centuries past, heresy was a secular crime as well as a religious one. To teach falsely in Medieval Spain, for example, was a crime against the crown as well as the Church. It was worse that murder because, the reasoning went, murderers could kill the physical body, but heresy leads men to the eternal damnation of their souls.

Also, reading the Bible, in and of itself, was never a crime to the faithful. What was problematic was during and after the Reformation, a variety of Protestants published their own vernacular translations of Scrpiture. And since these were done by men outside of the Church, normally with a very anti-Catholic agenda, the reading of such translations was banned. Sometimes, when these Bibles were very rampant in an area, the local bishop would ban the reading of any translated Bible, so that the faithful could not be accidentally and unknowingly led astray. The idea was to preserve in Catholics the Word of God, and not have it subsituted for the agendas of men.

And, I would add, the ignorance of one priest has absolutely nothing to do with the Truth. It is unfortunate, but has no impact on the faith of the Church. Further, your comment on the “special knowledge” of pedophiles seems, at least to me, a baseless ad hominem, as it has nothing to do with heresy at all. If I missed your point, I apologize.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[promethius]

I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible.

You recall incorrectly. The inquisitions were formed to stomp out the heresy of the Cathars and their close allies, the albigeneseans.

These were two VIOLENT sects. The cathars made multiple attempts to murder the pope, they slaughtered many priests (including St Peter of Castelnau among others). They believed that ALL procreation, married or not, was inherently evil, so they would break into the homes of families and torture the children until the parents would commit suicide to stop it, then they would murder the children anyway. The cathars also tried to ambush the french king while he was travelling on a crusade and tried to over throw him and seize France as their own. These were BAD dudes, and the church set out to (and did) stop them… THANKFULLY.

Further, the church created the modern idea of trial before guilt, and evidence presentation. The church did NOT burn people at the stake, because the local lords and magistrates were unwilling to give that power up to the religious, so after an inquisition returned a guilty verdict, the condemned was given to the local government for punishment. The local government would then determine the penalty, and the overwhelming majority of punishments were actually more similar to penance in the forms of fasting and almsgiving than death penalties.

Any thoughts on this?

Yeah, you need to learn a LOT more about the inquisitions.

 

[CSUNGerrie]

Wow… I feel so ignorant about catholic history. What book would you all reccomend that presents a fair portrayal of the spanish inquisition or this “Heretics burning at the stake” assumption?

 

[Contarini]

Hello

The Catholic Church as a vast body of beliefs and teachings that define the Catholic Faith. There is a vast body of writings that, to my knowledge, are not accepted by the Church. An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.

Why not? Don’t you care?

I seem to remember that people were burned at the stake for being heretics, by the Church. One of the reasons they were burned was they professed to have special knowledge of God.

Only if that special knowledge contradicted the revealed truths of the Faith as the Catholic Church taught it, and only if the heretic persisted in (or returned to) his or her error.

Today we are discovering things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries are historically accurate and do add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus, the Jews and the early Church. I think most people accept that. It is very easy to read something from the internet, about how some Scriptural mystery’s solution is revealed, and believe it. It becomes part of our Faith. This is a formation of our Faith from sources outside the established Church. It is special knowledge.

No, from a traditional Catholic perspective this isn’t part of the Faith. It’s historical knowledge gained through natural means. It’s not divinely revealed.

Our Church tolerates, even encourages, diversity. You can be a good Catholic and be charismatic, or a traditionalist, or something in the middle. I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible.

Not true.

Then they used their knowledge to confound the local priest, who didn’t. Made the Church look bad.

I would like to know what specific examples you are thinking of. I can’t think of anyone who was condemned as a heretic simply for this, though no doubt that might be the beginning of someone’s getting in trouble.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You recall incorrectly. The inquisitions were formed to stomp out the heresy of the Cathars and their close allies, the albigeneseans.

But they continued long after the end of the Cathar heresy (contrary to what you say, the Cathars and Albigensians were not close allies–these are two words for the same broad group). And I question why you immediately jump to the “inquisitions.” People were being tried for heresy long before the formation of the “inquisitions,” and during the time when the inquisitions existed there were prosecutions for heresy in areas where no formal Inquisition was in operation. (This is important because some Catholic apologists talk about the Protestant “Inquisition,” which did not exist, on the strength of the obvious fact that Protestants engaged in persecution as well.)

These were two VIOLENT sects.

I know of no examples of the Cathars engaging in unprovoked violence, although they certainly were not pacifists.

The cathars made multiple attempts to murder the pope,

Documentation?

they slaughtered many priests (including St Peter of Castelnau among others).

He was an inquisitor. He was not just going around saying Mass–he was actively engaged in persecuting them.

They believed that ALL procreation, married or not, was inherently evil, so they would break into the homes of families and torture the children until the parents would commit suicide to stop it, then they would murder the children anyway.

Documentation for this claim?

The cathars also tried to ambush the french king while he was travelling on a crusade and tried to over throw him and seize France as their own.

I’m less interested in this claim, since it seems quite likely and unremarkable (and not confined to the Cathars by any means), but I’d like to know where you are getting all your claims from!

Further, the church created the modern idea of trial before guilt, and evidence presentation.

Overstated.

The church did NOT burn people at the stake, because the local lords and magistrates were unwilling to give that power up to the religious

And because the Church recognized that it ought not to be in the business of killing people!

so after an inquisition returned a guilty verdict, the condemned was given to the local government for punishment. The local government would then determine the penalty, and the overwhelming majority of punishments were actually more similar to penance in the forms of fasting and almsgiving than death penalties.

I believe that these nonlethal punishments were generally administered directly by the inquisitions (or by the regular church court where there was no Inquisition). Only in the case of the death penalty was the condemned person handed over to the secular arm. This handing over was always accompanied (from what I’ve read) with a recommendation to be merciful, though I think this was more or less a formality.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Wow… I feel so ignorant about catholic history. What book would you all reccomend that presents a fair portrayal of the spanish inquisition or this “Heretics burning at the stake” assumption?

There are a number of books on the subject. Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition has been very influential in debunking many of the traditional myths. For a much more hostile approach, focusing on the Jews, see BenZion Netanyahu, The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth-Century Spain.

On heresy and persecution in the Middle Ages, you might look at the following:
R. I. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society
Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy
Wakefield and Evans, eds., *Heresies of the High Middle Ages *(collection of primary sources)

For the Reformation era, one good book is Brad Gregory’s Salvation at Stake. It focuses on martyrs (of all persuasions) rather than those who persecuted them, but one early chapter, “The Willingness to Kill,” articulates why Christians in the sixteenth century persecuted each other.

This website looks like a pretty good, scholarly bibliography.
Paul Halsall’s Medieval Sourcebook has a good list of online primary sources.

Edwin

 

[Axion]

People were being tried for heresy long before the formation of the “inquisitions,” and during the time when the inquisitions existed there were prosecutions for heresy in areas where no formal Inquisition was in operation. (This is important because some Catholic apologists talk about the Protestant “Inquisition,” which did not exist, on the strength of the obvious fact that Protestants engaged in persecution as well.)

Heresy was a triable offense by Christian governments East and West, because it directly threatened the State. Violent heretics like the Paulicians, Bogomils and even the Cathars threatened the states they lived in by subverting the citizens into belief that the existing order and government were “evil”. They became a huge security risk, allying with enemies like the Muslims to threaten the state or provoke civil war. Most major historical heresies have ended in either Civil War or national wars. Governments from the Roman Empire onward therefore saw obstinate heresy as one of the most serious of crimes.

I know of no examples of the Cathars engaging in unprovoked violence, although they certainly were not pacifists.

Apart from Peter of Castelnau the Cathars were notorious for their Mafia-like policy of rule by terror, in that anyone who reported or spoke against them was subject to assassination. This is in numerous sources.

Overstated.

Most of the principles of modern law, including trial by a jury of peers, and judging the motivation of the criminal, rather than just the act and who it was done to, came via Christianity. The idea of defence attorneys was actually introduced by the Inquisition.

He was an inquisitor. He was not just going around saying Mass–he was actively engaged in persecuting them.

Peter of Castelnau was not an Inquisitor since the inquisition did not exist then. The Medieval Inquisition was formed after the Cathar wars as an instituution to nip dangerous heresies in the bud, before they caused the wars and destruction that Catharism caused. Peter of Castelnau was sent as a Papal Legate to attempt to get the Cathars to come back to the Church, and to get the local Lords to stop protecting and supporting them.

 

[larry85704]

When I said that I didn’t make any judgment about the discoveries that are made about Scripture, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the life of Jesus, such as the gospel of Thomas, what I meant was that I don’t care if they are historically accurate or not.

Discoveries made today can change our Faith. Changing the Catholic Faith must be done by the Pope and maybe the Bishops of the Catholic Church, not by me, or anybody else. Lets say God appears to Samantha in Peru and tells her that, as a trivial example, men should cover their heads at Mass. Now it is the job of the Bishops and the Pope to investigate this. If they decide it is God’s revelation, then I would expect the Church to require hats.

Divine revelation has not stopped.

 

[AndyF]

larry85704:

Most authors believe the offense must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind (in genere suo).

It is easily forgotten that intent should weigh in heresy cases. There are probably 99% of cases where careless words or thoughts are simply made. In these cases a simple correction usually brings the person back on track. So I feel true heresy is an exception.

On heresy itself, the definition ie: *the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. *raises questions of it’s own.

For instance all religions are null and void since the new Church was founded. Therefore all individuals are obstinately outside the Faith who are not classed invincibly ignorant. However, these may not be baptised, therefore by this technicality their heretical comments against the true Church don’t carry weight. So in summary a sinful unbaptised person due to being obstinate can never additionally carry the heritical mark.

Consider again. The Church recognizes baptisms of other Christian churches, therefore they carry the culpability of heretics by default since they will never agree to some of the dogma of the true Church. Carried further, they have permissions for some Fruits of the Church even though they carry the heretical stigma. What can be a worse example of willful persistence than outright rejection.

AndyF

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

On heresy itself, the definition ie: *the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. *raises questions of it’s own.

For instance all religions are null and void since the new Church was founded. Therefore all individuals are obstinately outside the Faith who are not classed invincibly ignorant. However, these may not be baptised, therefore by this technicality their heretical comments against the true Church don’t carry weight. So in summary a sinful unbaptised person due to being obstinate can never additionally carry the heritical mark.

Consider again. The Church recognizes baptisms of other Christian churches, therefore they carry the culpability of heretics by default since they will never agree to some of the dogma of the true Church. Carried further, they have permissions for some Fruits of the Church even though they carry the heretical stigma. What can be a worse example of willful persistence than outright rejection.

AndyF

Maybe I misunderstand what you’e saying, and if so, I apologize. But you seem to be mistaken. Protestants are not Catholics, and although their baptisms are (usually) valid, they nevertheless remain outside the Church. They are our separated brethren, and are not fully members of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, since most Protestants grew up with various heretical doctrines, they have never had a real, legitimate opportunity to learn the fullness of Truth. Therefore, while they may subscribe to heresy, they themselves cannot be heretics. One cannot lose a belief that he never believed in the first place.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[AndyF]

Ne_OrangeKnight:

As it relates to the second observation in my post.

since most Protestants grew up with various heretical doctrines, they have never had a real, legitimate opportunity to learn the fullness of Truth.

Non Sequitur. The argument Growing up protestant doesnt necessarily conclude to not having legitimate opportunity.

Besides. Not being Catholic is not an excuse, it is a imputed defect, nor, hard as it is to believe, does it release them from their obligations of being virtuous Catholics. You see, this is the error thinking of today. We are not in a natural environment of many Divinely acceptable religions sharing one thing in common, substituting tolerance with acceptance.

What you are seeing is the effect of parent sin or the instigator. It propagates child sins. If the person were Catholic in it’s true definition, then he cannot commit heresy.

Your point is that their position cannot be imputed to them to begin with, and you imply we accept this and it’s consequences, therefore they cannot be culpable of the effects.

In one case that comes to mind it is permissible for a protestant to go to a priest for confession, the criteria being that he is baptized Christian, and not necessarily Catholic. Therefore the Fruits of Absolution are bestowed upon a contrite protestant, otherwise the point of confession would be entirely redundant. The result of the contra-Catholic heretic protestant would be hypocritical, in that he just received a benefit and gift of Christ’s Church, (or at least has the option), while adamantly turning others to his errors on another point. So has I said, this is one benefit of being within the true Church, has there would not be other beliefs to compare with. So by the position he has placed himself he cannot be exempt from the sin of heresy because we enter the Faith so that this will not occur.

So it is a rare protestant that is invincibly ignorant, some would say borderline oxymoronic, starting from the first enticement of knowing the true Church does exist.

Andy

 

[thistle]

When I said that I didn’t make any judgment about the discoveries that are made about Scripture, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the life of Jesus, such as the gospel of Thomas, what I meant was that I don’t care if they are historically accurate or not.

Discoveries made today can change our Faith. Changing the Catholic Faith must be done by the Pope and maybe the Bishops of the Catholic Church, not by me, or anybody else. Lets say God appears to Samantha in Peru and tells her that, as a trivial example, men should cover their heads at Mass. Now it is the job of the Bishops and the Pope to investigate this. If they decide it is God’s revelation, then I would expect the Church to require hats.

Divine revelation has not stopped.

How can any discoveries change our faith? I totally disagree with that comment.
The Church already has the FULLNESS of TRUTH. There is no further public revelation.
Private revelation is not necessary for our salvation and we are not obliged to accept it.
That is the Church teaching. Nothing in private revelation will change any Church teaching.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Non Sequitur. The argument Growing up protestant doesnt necessarily conclude to not having legitimate opportunity.

Besides. Not being Catholic is not an excuse, it is a imputed defect, nor, hard as it is to believe, does it release them from their obligations of being virtuous Catholics. You see, this is the error thinking of today. We are not in a natural environment of many Divinely acceptable religions sharing one thing in common, substituting tolerance with acceptance.

I am in no way denying that the fullness of truth exists solely in the Catholic Church, nor that some Proestants are willfully in stubborn denial about the Truth. I am merely being charitable to those who are not, and have never been, Catholic. It is impossible for either of us to be certain whether (for example) a life-long Baptist knows that the Church speaks the with the fullness of Truth. Therefore, I feel that charity demands that we assume the best about our separated brothers as we try to instruct them.

What you are seeing is the effect of parent sin or the instigator. It propagates child sins. If the person were Catholic in it’s true definition, then he cannot commit heresy.

Again, perhaps I misunderstand you, but it is only Catholics who can commit heresy. Unless by truly Catholic, you mean believing all the doctrines of the faith, in which case it’s not a relevant statement to the discussion at hand.

Your point is that their position cannot be imputed to them to begin with, and you imply we accept this and it’s consequences, therefore they cannot be culpable of the effects.

My point, actually, is given here: ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm , with the salient portion being,

“Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth.” (bold emphasis is mine)

As to the second point, I say again that no one can be certain as to whether another is ultimately responsible for ignorance.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[bksumm]

Hello Larry,

The Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized the “true” books of the Bible. In A.D. 382 with the decree of Pope Damasus I (Jurgens, “Faith of our Early Fathers” p. 404). Afterwards the councils of Hippo in A.D. 393, and Carthage A.D. 397 approved the present OT and NT canons. Finally, Pope St Innocent closed the canon of the Bible in A.D 405. The canon was reafirmed at the Council of Trent. (Chacon & Burnham, "Begining Apologetics 1) As a Catholic, there is no room for private judgement regarding what is the true word of God.

An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.

Today we are discovering things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries are historically accurate and do add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus, the Jews and the early Church. I think most people accept that. It is very easy to read something from the internet, about how some Scriptural mystery’s solution is revealed, and believe it. It becomes part of our Faith. This is a formation of our Faith from sources outside the established Church. It is special knowledge.

?

The writings of Thomas are Gnostic writings and they weren’t discovered at Qumran (Dead Sea) but rather at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain writings from the Old Testament and none from the New. They include the books of Psalms, Deuteronomy, 1 Enoch, Genesis, Isaiah, etc. These discovered writings don’t “add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus.”

The Gospel of Thomas was obviously rejected, as was Gnosticism, by the Church centuries ago. It isn’t orthodox. If one wants to be Gnostic…then by all means follow Gnostic teachings. I for one follow the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[NHInsider]

Ne_OrangeKnight:

As it relates to the second observation in my post.

Non Sequitur. The argument Growing up protestant doesnt necessarily conclude to not having legitimate opportunity.

Besides. Not being Catholic is not an excuse, it is a imputed defect, nor, hard as it is to believe, does it release them from their obligations of being virtuous Catholics.
-snip-
Your point is that their position cannot be imputed to them to begin with, and you imply we accept this and it’s consequences, therefore they cannot be culpable of the effects.

-snip-

So it is a rare protestant that is invincibly ignorant, some would say borderline oxymoronic, starting from the first enticement of knowing the true Church does exist.

It would appear from the above quotation that you believe Unitatis Redintegratio to be in error? That’s a pretty big presumption.

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. . . .it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. . .For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

 

[AndyF]

It would appear from the above quotation that you believe Unitatis Redintegratio to be in error? That’s a pretty big presumption.

“The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. . . .it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. . .For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”

They cannot be accused of the sin of separation, but they suffer the effects, which among others could be complacency,resignation,indifference and critiques toward other religions. More seriously, there are bound to be individuals who will eventually find themselves borderline and may have been saved by the additional graces only provided by the Church.

Full benefit cannot be appreciated without the conclusion to your quoted chapter…

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord** entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone,** of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which **all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, ** though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings.

The Church, then, is God’s only flock;

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ;** all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided**.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.
   

                                 ---------------------------------------------

Radio Replies Vol I (frs Rumble,Carty, Msgr Cardinal FJ Sheen)

q. But why keep insisting that the Catholic church is the only Church?
a. Because Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be has the heathen.” He did not say, “If a man will not hear a portion of the Gospel in man-made substitute churches.”

And from the first reformer we see the effects today…

Sir 41,5 “A reprobate line are the children of sinners, and witless offspring are in the homes of the wicked. Their dominion is lost to sinner’s children, and reproach abides with their descendants.”

Andy

 

[AndyF]

I am in no way denying that the fullness of truth exists solely in the Catholic Church, nor that some Proestants are willfully in …

OK, i understand.

My point, actually, is given here: ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm , with the salient portion being,“Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth.” (bold emphasis is mine)

Are you sure this isn’t Sententia Fidei Proxima? All due respect and reverence to the author/s, 2/ should follow with, "in which case their conscience would provide for the source for right reason. But I can understand why it wouldn’t be included has it would negate 1/.
Ignorance of the Truth is not a prerequisite for exemption from discernment,responsibility and duty. Genesis shows how God graced man with a conscience until such day that the truth be revealed, and conscience is still at work
since.From newadvent/sin:

“There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of has being prohibited. A prohibition is unitelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding conscience of man can only be God.”

From this base precept let us form an anology.

Bob, born of Protestant parents, has no knowledge that what he is advocating willfully and with persistence against a church that is not his is wrong. With a well honed conscience, he would be able to discern at least confusedly that there is something wrong with his position. But in his case it may be lacking, therefore not leaving any residue of uncertainty. (The guilt of not possessing a well honed conscience can also be imputed to him.)

We will see that those laws that are in common to Protestantism and Catholicism he is responsible according to them. The remaining laws he is ignorant of he will be responsible for without reference to them.

Rom 2,12

“Sinners who do not have the law will perish without reference to it; sinners bound by the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is
not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just.”

Immediately we perceive his dilema. By not having reference to the law (imputed to his church by the first schism, ie: compounding) which may be the point of his heretical objection against some precept of the Catholic church, he is held in a possible precarious position by the state of his conscience for anything else not covered.

This was my gist of my point. Lacking ignorance to the truth, God still has made backup provision in the form of conscience for all man from the time of Adam onward.

Therefore, by inference of all the references in this case Bob would be guilty.
Andy