P
PseuTonym
Guest
then are you in effect insulting my mother when you use the word “heresy” without knowing in advance whether or not what you give the label “heresy” is an element of my faith?
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
P
PseuTonym
Guest
This thread poses a question. It is a question about how we should conduct communication in public spaces.
Various words have been coined in an attempt to create a way to make a reference without belittling what is referred to. For example, “idiot” and “moron” used to have specific meanings as different from each other as the meanings of the words “weight” and “mass” are from each other. When people became less aware of the distinction between “idiot” and “moron”, the word “retarded” was introduced with the key element being the idea of slowness, just as the word “depression” was introduced as a reference to a mild economic downturn, like a depression in the road ahead, which is different from a cliff or a crisis.
What new word could be introduced to replace the word “heresy”? It seems inevitable that if you call my faith a “heresy” then you are not merely applying a neutral description that all observers can agree is accurate. If you apply the label “heresy” to my faith, then it seems inevitable that most observers will say that you have denigrated my faith.
C
casslean
Guest
Heresy has a definition; there is no need to create new words because either (1) someone is uncomfortable with the fact that they may be engaging in heresy or (2) individuals choose to misuse the word. What is required is education on the proper definition of the word and why actions or beliefs may or may not be heretical.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Some people hold roughly the same beliefs of Christian faith and are in communion with each other.
Other people hold roughly the same Christian beliefs, but are not in communion with each other. This is “schism,” which means “division, splitting, cleft.”
Still other people do not hold the same Christian beliefs as each other, whether or not they are trying to remain in communion. This is “heresy,” which means “choosing, taking away” or “philosophical sect, school of thought.” Whenever the followers of one philosopher began to follow a new philosopher instead of their original master, they split off and created a new “haeresis,” because they had chosen a new teacher.
So no, I don’t think it’s insulting for me to say that someone else’s beliefs are “heresy,” because I am also saying that, according to the other person, my beliefs are “heresy.” We have made different “choosing” of beliefs, such that we now both represent a different “school of thought.”
In some cases, both parties would differ on which one represents Jesus’ teaching faithfully. In other cases, heretics openly admit that they don’t believe Jesus’ teaching, because His teaching is old and outmoded and sexist and stuff. In these cases, they often are proud to call their own ideas “heresy.”
Either way, it’s not the sort of thing one throws around loosely, as just a sort of decorative noun. For Catholics, it has a specific canon law definition. (Most Christian denominations have defined how far one can go before one is no longer a member of that denomination, as a simple fact.) It’s not useful to bring up “heresy” most of the time in apologetics, since most people of different denominations don’t expect that they believe the same things.
But if you believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, and that He founded the Catholic Church and taught her all the things she teaches –
Then you want to learn what He wants you to know, not choose a different, totally non-divine philosopher or preacher or academic to be your teacher.
Other people hold roughly the same Christian beliefs, but are not in communion with each other. This is “schism,” which means “division, splitting, cleft.”
Still other people do not hold the same Christian beliefs as each other, whether or not they are trying to remain in communion. This is “heresy,” which means “choosing, taking away” or “philosophical sect, school of thought.” Whenever the followers of one philosopher began to follow a new philosopher instead of their original master, they split off and created a new “haeresis,” because they had chosen a new teacher.
So no, I don’t think it’s insulting for me to say that someone else’s beliefs are “heresy,” because I am also saying that, according to the other person, my beliefs are “heresy.” We have made different “choosing” of beliefs, such that we now both represent a different “school of thought.”
In some cases, both parties would differ on which one represents Jesus’ teaching faithfully. In other cases, heretics openly admit that they don’t believe Jesus’ teaching, because His teaching is old and outmoded and sexist and stuff. In these cases, they often are proud to call their own ideas “heresy.”
Either way, it’s not the sort of thing one throws around loosely, as just a sort of decorative noun. For Catholics, it has a specific canon law definition. (Most Christian denominations have defined how far one can go before one is no longer a member of that denomination, as a simple fact.) It’s not useful to bring up “heresy” most of the time in apologetics, since most people of different denominations don’t expect that they believe the same things.
But if you believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, and that He founded the Catholic Church and taught her all the things she teaches –
Then you want to learn what He wants you to know, not choose a different, totally non-divine philosopher or preacher or academic to be your teacher.
A
ahs
Guest
No. One would be calling a “heresy” for it is without insulting a person. Obviously we must be charitable in how we dialog, but that charity must never come without Truth, otherwise it is not true charity.
^ That.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were 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 are sins, there are also divisions, schisms,** heresies**, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
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.”
S
St_Francis
Guest
No. If Joe believes some heresy, which he got from his mother, and I call Joe a heretic, esp without knowing his mother believes that, I would not be insulting her, only him.
If someone would be insulted by being called a heretic, it is probably best not to call him that. It’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar and all that.
If someone would be insulted by being called a heretic, it is probably best not to call him that. It’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar and all that.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
It depends on what your standard is. If we are all simply using our own personal faith as the measuring stick, then, yes, it is somewhat nonsensical to use the word heresy to describe our own faith.
But the Deposit of Faith is something external to us that we do not define but rather accept or reject. If we reject parts of that faith we are, by definition, engaging in heresy.
Yes, the word has negative connotations, and some people unfortunately use the word incorrectly as a rhetorical club. But it has a specific meaning that ought to be descriptive. I would say the negative connotation attached to the word is somewhat to be expected because it is not a positive thing.
But the Deposit of Faith is something external to us that we do not define but rather accept or reject. If we reject parts of that faith we are, by definition, engaging in heresy.
Yes, the word has negative connotations, and some people unfortunately use the word incorrectly as a rhetorical club. But it has a specific meaning that ought to be descriptive. I would say the negative connotation attached to the word is somewhat to be expected because it is not a positive thing.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
There’s always the old synonym “heterodox”.
- Status