Heterodoxy and Heresy

[Rascalking]

(apologies if this question doesn’t belong here)

Where is the line between the two?

 

[Corki]

If the dissent is about Church discipline, I would call it heterodoxy. Unless, that is, the person dissenting claims the Church has no authority with regard to the discipline.

Heresy is trickier since, in order to be a heretic, one must understand the original teaching. Strictly speaking, I think heresy involves some kinds of public declaration too. So someone could hold very dissenting beliefs about key doctrines but it isn’t heresy, in my opinion, unless they tell others or try to teach a contrary position.

 

[dmar198]

(apologies if this question doesn’t belong here)

Where is the line between the two?

You have to be Catholic before you can be a heretic, because a heretic is a dissenting Catholic. You can be heterodox in any faith tradition though – it just means “different faith.”

If you are using the words as adjectives, though, I do not see how they are different. Because a non-Catholic can hold heretical beliefs (i.e. beliefs that a Catholic couldn’t hold without dissenting from Church teaching) and these beliefs would be heterodox (i.e. of a faith that is different from the Catholic faith) by that very fact.

I hope that helps, but really that’s like 65% speculation. All I know for sure is what the term “heterodox” means etymologically, and that you have to be Catholic to be a heretic. So the rest of that is my logical inferences from those two facts.
God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[drafdog]

A heretic is a person who has committed heresy.

Heresy is proposing an unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon.

Heterodoxy includes any opinion or doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position.

The difference is subtle. But let me illustrate: It is orthodox to believe that “the brethren of the Lord” referred to in scripture are cousins of Jesus. It is heterodox to believe that they are children of Joseph by his previous wife or wives. It is heretical to believe that they are children of Joseph by Mary.

Brother Matthew

 

[drafdog]

OP: Please read slowly and aloud your signature.

Brother Matthew

 

[Corki]

A heretic is a person who has committed heresy.

Heresy is proposing an unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon.

Heterodoxy includes any opinion or doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position.

The difference is subtle. But let me illustrate: It is orthodox to believe that “the brethren of the Lord” referred to in scripture are cousins of Jesus. It is heterodox to believe that they are children of Joseph by his previous wife or wives. It is heretical to believe that they are children of Joseph by Mary.

Brother Matthew

Good example but since the Church has never spoken or given an “official position” on whether Joseph had other children, how can that be heterodox?

 

[Areopagite]

If the dissent is about Church discipline, I would call it heterodoxy. Unless, that is, the person dissenting claims the Church has no authority with regard to the discipline.

Heresy is trickier since, in order to be a heretic, one must understand the original teaching. Strictly speaking, I think heresy involves some kinds of public declaration too. So someone could hold very dissenting beliefs about key doctrines but it isn’t heresy, in my opinion, unless they tell others or try to teach a contrary position.

Material Heresy: when someone believes something that has been officially condemned by the Church without his knowledge (this is not necessarily sinful)

Formal Heresy: when someone believes something that has been officially condemned by the Church with his knowledge (this is necessarily sinful)