Really having issues with this...do Protestants go to hell..Catholic view on this?

[steve_b]

No.

One must be a Catholic in order to be a heretic.

And I would be very, very careful about calling someone a heretic without the authority of the CC to back you up.

One should tremble at the thought of accusing someone of being a heretic, when the Church has not done so.

The idea that one could be wrong about claiming someone is a heretic, well, that should make one very, very wary.

Rather, when the Church discerns someone to be a heretic, then I do so as well.

When the Church has remained silent on a particular person, best to remain silent as well.

As I responded to clem’s post

“The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or *material *sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. 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. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

That only Catholics and no one else is guilty of heresy, is false.

 

[PRmerger]

As I responded to clem’s post

I quoted the Catechism already which refutes your claim that Protestants are heretics.

Protestants may embrace heresy, but they cannot be heretics. They are, in fact, our brothers and sisters.

So says our Catechism.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

 

[steve_b]

I quoted the Catechism already which refutes your claim that Protestants are heretics.

Protestants may embrace heresy, but they cannot be heretics. They are, in fact, our brothers and sisters.

So says our Catechism.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

That passage doesn’t say Protestants can NEVER be charged with heresy.
That passage doesn’t say only Catholics can be charged with heresy and no one else.

So you can’t say to your proposition, “so says our Catechism”

Do you have another passage perhaps that you want to quote?

 

[Gorgias]

As I responded to clem’s post

The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy

Then, you’re comfortable being called a ‘rapist’? After all, you possess the matter of rape, even if you haven’t formally committed a rape…

(And yeah, I hate this argument, too – when some would call all males ‘rapists’ because they have the appropriate equipment, it makes me see red and object to the characterization. Yet – and probably because of this aversion to such an accusation – I can see where calling any non-Catholic a ‘heretic’ seems just as injust. Can you see it, too, steve?)

 

[steve_b]

Then, you’re comfortable being called a ‘rapist’? After all, you possess the matter of rape, even if you haven’t formally committed a rape…

(And yeah, I hate this argument, too – when some would call all males ‘rapists’ because they have the appropriate equipment, it makes me see red and object to the characterization. Yet – and probably because of this aversion to such an accusation – I can see where calling any non-Catholic a ‘heretic’ seems just as injust. Can you see it, too, steve?)

have you completely lost it?

I gave my source. ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

What does your post have to do with anything being said here

 

[PRmerger]

That passage doesn’t say Protestants can NEVER be charged with heresy.
That passage doesn’t say only Catholics can be charged with heresy and no one else.

So you can’t say to your proposition, “so says our Catechism”

Do you have another passage perhaps that you want to quote?

Fair enough.

Go ahead and charge someone with heresy.

But if I were you, I would tremble, (and it ought to keep you up at night) at this thought: What if I am wrong?

And this prompts the question: if one accuses someone of being a heretic, and he’s actually not, does that make the accuser a heretic?

 

[clem456]

As I responded to clem’s post

My last response for the benefit of those who are still listening.

There is a difference between noting what qualifies as heresy, and using the word “heretic” in regard to modern protestants, against what the Church practices and teaches.
Using the word heretic for people born into Protestant communities is inappropriate at best.

 

[steve_b]

Fair enough.

Define that

Are you acknowledging I made my case and the others are wrong? Or are you saying everyone is right and no body is wrong?
P:

Go ahead and charge someone with heresy.

Where have I done that?
P:

But if I were you, I would tremble, (and it ought to keep you up at night) at this thought: What if I am wrong?

The sources I quote from allow me to sleep just fine.
P:

And this prompts the question: if one accuses someone of being a heretic, and he’s actually not, does that make the accuser a heretic?

All you’re doing is showing that you didn’t read the source(s) I provided, particularly the last one. . ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

 

[steve_b]

My last response for the benefit of those who are still listening.

There is a difference between noting what qualifies as heresy, and using the word “heretic” in regard to modern protestants, against what the Church practices and teaches.
Using the word heretic for people born into Protestant communities is inappropriate at best.

You set up a straw man here. You reinterpret what is said, as if I wrote or meant it the way you present it, then attack your own straw man. That’s what going on here.

My source(s) I quoted from, (the last one I had saved ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm ) defended everything I wrote on in this thread. And all came from qualified Church sources.

 

[clem456]

You set up a straw man here. You reinterpret what is said, as if I wrote or meant it the way you present it, then attack your own straw man. That’s what going on here.

My source(s) I quoted from, (the last one I had saved ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm ) defended everything I wrote on in this thread. And all came from qualified Church sources.

No Steve.
This is your post right here:

As I pointed out

therefore if a Protestant is validly baptized, and has been shown the truth, but denies it, or obstinately doubts it, they qualify as a heretic, just as much as a Catholic would qualify.

Your assertion is patently incorrect.
No straw man.

 

[PRmerger]

Define that

Are you acknowledging I made my case and the others are wrong? Or are you saying everyone is right and no body is wrong?

I am saying that it’s true that the Catechism doesn’t say that Protestants can NEVER be charged with heresy.

Where have I done that?

Oh? You’ve never called anyone a heretic? But you just feel like you should be able to have that right to do so?

Is that your point?

The sources I quote from allow me to sleep just fine.

Well, yeah. Since now it appears that you haven’t actually called anyone a heretic, it’s a moot point.

But when you do decide you are going to charge someone with the label “HERETIC!”, it should keep you awake at night, trembling, lest you are wrong…
…and wonder about whether one is, ironically, a heretic if one accuses another, unjustly, incorrectly, uncharitably, of being a heretic.

 

[anon67074017]

What part? The part where Scripture says that the Church is the pillar of truth?

You misinterpreted what I said. I absolutely agree that the Church is the pillar of truth.

Joseph3, your affiliation describes you as Catholic. If this is true,how is it that you do not know the origin of Sacred Tradition?

I figured that God inspires Sacred Tradition. I was just wondering about rules made by men only.

 

[PRmerger]

You misinterpreted what I said. I absolutely agree that the Church is the pillar of truth.

I figured that God inspires Sacred Tradition. I was just wondering about rules made by men only.

There’s nothing wrong with rules made by men only, provided that it doesn’t contradict the Word of God.

 

[steve_b]

No Steve.
This is your post right here:

Your assertion is patently incorrect.
No straw man.

You said (emphasis mine)

“There is a difference between noting what qualifies as heresy, and using the word “heretic” in regard to modern protestants, against what the Church practices and teaches.
Using the word heretic for people born into Protestant communities is inappropriate at best.”

I did NOT use heretic against what the Church practices and teaches. And I gave quotes properly referenced.

Looking at #70

That’s what the CCC says
and that’s what Colin B. Donovan, STL says ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Where are your references?

 

[Gorgias]

have you completely lost it?

Nope. Have you?

I gave my source. ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Your source is non-magisterial; mine was from canon law. I’m sure you already know which is more authoritative.

Moreover, your source discusses pre-Vatican II thought; as I’m sure you know, the current code of canon law was promulgated in 1983, so its assertions trump any pre-Vatican II era canonical definitions. In other words, your source is outdated, while mine is current.

What does your post have to do with anything being said here

It has to do with the distinction that you, yourself, raised: the difference between material and formal. But hey… if you want to back off from that distinction, be my guest.

 

[clem456]

You said (emphasis mine)

“There is a difference between noting what qualifies as heresy, and using the word “heretic” in regard to modern protestants, against what the Church practices and teaches.
Using the word heretic for people born into Protestant communities is inappropriate at best.”

I did NOT use heretic against what the Church practices and teaches. And I gave quotes properly referenced.

Looking at #70

That’s what the CCC says
and that’s what Colin B. Donovan, STL says ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Where are your references?

You’ve seen plenty of references. Canon Law was the applicable reference I was steering you to. Steve, you are plenty able to find the information. No one needs to spoon feed you. Right?
This is getting silly. You were wrong. A couple of posters called you on it. End of story. Unless you’d like to continue with the epitaph. Have at it.

 

[steve_b]

Nope. Have you?

Your source is non-magisterial; mine was from canon law. I’m sure you already know which is more authoritative.

So we are clear, what post of yours are you referring to? Be specific.
G:

Moreover, your source discusses pre-Vatican II thought; as I’m sure you know, the current code of canon law was promulgated in 1983, so its assertions trump any pre-Vatican II era canonical definitions. In other words, your source is outdated, while mine is current.

If you had read my source you wouldn’t have said that. Note the quote from my source down the page. Note it’s quoting from the 1983 canon law.

As for my sources

• the CCC given us by JPII post VII . particularly sectioon 2089
• EWTN ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Did you see those definitions of terms in the opening lines of the EWTN source I quoted? They are post VII. Just because my source doesn’t fit your viewpoint, and you don’t like it, does it mean you’re right.

So that we are clear, I’m going to *highlight *appropriate sections from my source (the source you didn’t read) to show you that this is current thinking. I will also make certain comments in [brackets]

"The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. 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. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.[not all ignorance is innocent[/COLOR] [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) or invincible. #[14 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13035556&postcount=14) ]

          The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just                   the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is                   materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through                   willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian                   faith.              Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff,               whom Vatican I defined as having a universal [primacy               of authority](https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/papal_primacy.htm) over the whole Church, is at least a material               schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the *              schismatic* Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. *As with               heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who               belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to               them as schismatics.*
          **

Excommunication**
When it comes to Catholics who are *formally *guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, *the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 *Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,"

how about THAT! 1983 code of canon law.

It has to do with the distinction that you, yourself, raised: the difference between material

and formal. But hey… if you want to back off from that distinction, be my guest.

Who are you lecturing? That distinction has already been made and addressed in the link I posted…

As for the author, catholic.com/profiles/colin-donovan

 

[steve_b]

You’ve seen plenty of references. Canon Law was the applicable reference I was steering you to. Steve, you are plenty able to find the information. No one needs to spoon feed you. Right?
This is getting silly. You were wrong. A couple of posters called you on it. End of story. Unless you’d like to continue with the epitaph. Have at it.

Which canon law? Which references?

When I ask for a person’s references and I get your response, I know you have no references or you would have given them easily.

 

[Gorgias]

So we are clear, what post of yours are you referring to? Be specific.

I referred to canon law earlier; in case you’re having problems Googling “heresy canon law”, here’s the text:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith

Now, if you recall, canon law applies to Catholics. So, if c. 751 speaks of ‘baptism’, it’s speaking of the baptism of Catholics, not non-Catholic Christians. Therefore, heresy applies to baptized Catholics. QED.

If you had read my source you wouldn’t have said that. Note the quote from my source down the page. Note it’s quoting from the 1983 canon law.

I read your source. Donovan asserts that, prior to Vatican II, non-Catholics might be called ‘heretics’, but not since then. Therefore, the 1983 CIC – which post-dates the references Donovan makes – holds precedence. That means that, since the 1983 CIC (which I’ve quoted) is only speaking of Catholics, then heresy (in the current day) applies only to Catholics.

As for my sources

the CCC given us by JPII post VII . particularly sectioon 2089

You realize, of course, don’t you, that CCC 2089 is quoting CIC 751? That means that it’s not saying something different than the canon – which means it, too, only applies to Catholics.

EWTN ewtn.com/expert/answers/…m_apostasy.htm

Did you see those definitions of terms in the opening lines of the EWTN source I quoted?

Non-magisterial source.

They are post VII. Just because my source doesn’t fit your viewpoint, and you don’t like it, does it mean you’re right.

No; I’m right because I’m interpreting magisterial sources properly, and you’re trying to make them say something they’re not trying to say.

As for the author, catholic.com/profiles/colin-donovan

I’m sure Mr Donovan is quite qualified. However, that doesn’t mean that your (mistaken) interpretation of his comments trump canon law or the catechism.

 

[steve_b]

I referred to canon law earlier; in case you’re having problems Googling “heresy canon law”, here’s the text:

I quoted it first.
G:

Now, if you recall, canon law applies to Catholics. So, if c. 751 speaks of ‘baptism’, it’s speaking of the baptism of Catholics, not non-Catholic Christians. Therefore, heresy applies to baptized Catholics. QED.

there’s only one baptism. Heresy can apply to ANYONE who is validly baptized and goes off the rails in belief…
G:

I read your source. Donovan asserts that, prior to Vatican II, non-Catholics might be called ‘heretics’, but not since then.

He does NOT deny that heresy / heretic still applies, just because the charity rule is not using the name heretic.

See the highlighted text below
G:

Therefore, the 1983 CIC – which post-dates the references Donovan makes – holds precedence. That means that, since the 1983 CIC (which I’ve quoted) is only speaking of Catholics, then heresy (in the current day) applies only to Catholics.

this involves anyone validly baptized. Where it specifically speaks of Catholics only is when excommunication is involved.

“Excommunication
When it comes to Catholics who are *formally *guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, *the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, *repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states…,”
G:

You realize, of course, don’t you, that CCC 2089 is quoting CIC 751?

It’s quoted at the top in my link
G:

That means that it’s not saying something different than the canon – which means it, too, only applies to Catholics.

Nope!

It applies to all the validly baptized. As the highlighted texts I’ve been posting say.
G:

Non-magisterial source.

Canon Law is magisterial
G:

No; I’m right because I’m interpreting magisterial sources properly, and you’re trying to make them say something they’re not trying to say.

And your interpretation contradicts Donovan’s.
G:

I’m sure Mr Donovan is quite qualified. However, that doesn’t mean that your (mistaken) interpretation of his comments trump canon law or the catechism.

It’s not my interpretation. I quoted Donovan

*"prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. **This theological distinction remains true, *though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth.

Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. 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. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God."

I added my comment. *[not all ignorance is innocent[/COLOR] 1791 or invincible. #14 ]

That does NOT say Catholics** only**. NON Catholics are also included even after VII. For purposes of “charity” the term is not used specifically, but “*today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. **Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy.”

That applies to Catholic & non Catholic alike.
**