You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1
1ke
Guest
Read what he says about the difference between belief and actions vis-a-vis heresy and the canonical process.That implies that he’s saying it’s not heresy.
There’s a difference. It’s a technical topic and one you really don’t need to be concerning yourself with or trying to parse our meaning from articles written by canon lawyers.
Again: go talk to your priest if you have a concerns.
Last edited:
H
Humility
Guest
You’re right, assuming all those other things fit into that category: Have Pro-Abortion Politicians Excommunicated Themselves? - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy At the end, she says as much.
And this document: Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of 'Professio fidei' | EWTN says that those other things do fit into that category.
Thank you for discussing this with me. You’ve been very helpful.
And this document: Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of 'Professio fidei' | EWTN says that those other things do fit into that category.
Thank you for discussing this with me. You’ve been very helpful.
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
I’ve heard that heresy is more narrow, involving disagreement with the Nicene Creed specifically.
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses would be considered heretics because they object to the bolded part:
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses would be considered heretics because they object to the bolded part:
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Cardinal Ratzinger was identifying two different types of belief. A dogma is accepted by a divine faith that is given to us. It is not mediated by explanations and explications, but something we accept on its own authority. We believe in it . Heresy is about not believing.Why doesn’t it use the same language as point 5 if it’s saying this is heresy? In other words, why not use the word heresy if it is in fact heresy and not simply mortal sin to deny these things? Being in a state of mortal sin does remove one from full communion with the Catholic Church without excommunicating the person latae sententiae or otherwise. So, if Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wanted to convey this as actual heresy, why wouldn’t he just come out and say so?
The other category is things we accept because the Church teaches them. We believe in he Church so we accept these teachings on her authority, not that of the teaching. It is a different kind of relationship to the teaching, though the affirmation is just as complete.
Material heresy is not believing in a dogma. Formal heresy comes when a superior has corrected a statement of unbelief, and the person has persisted in affirming unbelief. Heresy is about belief, and so about dogmas we believe in. The issue with superiors shows it is generally limited to people in a hierarchy. Most of us do not have superiors in that way, though technically our bishop plays that role.
H
Humility
Guest
Apparently though, disbelief in infallible doctrines also constitutes material heresy. And I suppose in anything that could be said to be revealed by the scriptures?
D
Dovekin
Guest
We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma is how Pius XII infallibly defined the Assumption of Mary.
Dogma is defined as a principle “ laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” Anything taught with infallibility meets that definition, and so is a dogma.
I am not sure what your question is. There are teachings that are dogma, which must be believed. And there are other teachings that have not been laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true but we accept because we believe the authority teaching thme is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Heresy is about belief, dogma, infallible teaching.
Dogma is defined as a principle “ laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” Anything taught with infallibility meets that definition, and so is a dogma.
I am not sure what your question is. There are teachings that are dogma, which must be believed. And there are other teachings that have not been laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true but we accept because we believe the authority teaching thme is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Heresy is about belief, dogma, infallible teaching.
H
Humility
Guest
Not every infallible teaching is dogma, though. The Church’s teaching on birth control is infallible, but it is not dogma. It is what is known as an infallible doctrine. So, is believing the Church is wrong about birth control and openly professing that the Church is wrong considered heresy?
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Nothing is to be taken as infallible unless it is manifest.
The ban on artificial birth control is not dogma. Nor is it something that has been defined by extraordinary infallible act imo.
If it were, it would also be dogma, believed and denial would be heresy.
The ban on artificial birth control is not dogma. Nor is it something that has been defined by extraordinary infallible act imo.
If it were, it would also be dogma, believed and denial would be heresy.
K
kapp19
Guest
There are multiple senses of the word “heresy.”
In the strictest sense, heresy involves what is defined as Divine and Catholic Faith, or ecclesiastical Faith.
Other grades of error might imply heresy but are not strictly speaking heretical “in se.”
Here is a helpful (although slightly “severe,” in my opinion) chart on the topic, with examples:
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
-K
In the strictest sense, heresy involves what is defined as Divine and Catholic Faith, or ecclesiastical Faith.
Other grades of error might imply heresy but are not strictly speaking heretical “in se.”
Here is a helpful (although slightly “severe,” in my opinion) chart on the topic, with examples:
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
-K
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
What’s your point?Not every infallible teaching is dogma, though. The Church’s teaching on birth control is infallible, but it is not dogma. It is what is known as an infallible doctrine. So, is believing the Church is wrong about birth control and openly professing that the Church is wrong considered heresy?
You have all the information you need. What are you going to do with it in your state of life and sphere of competence?
If you want someone declared a heretic, get the appropriate degrees and standing in the Church, and do what you feel God is calling you to do. And good luck with that.
If you are not willing to commit your life to gaining the competence you need, devote yourself to the things God permits you. All the rest is distraction and will draw you away from your real vocation (and distraction/dissipation is what the devil loves…)
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
I’ve heard that heresy is more narrow, involving disagreement with the Nicene Creed specifically.
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses would be considered heretics because they object to the bolded part:
I think it is also a requirement that the person be validly baptized to be a heretic or apostate. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have valid baptism per Catholic requirements.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
of one Being with the Father.
See Modern Catholic Dictionary, heresy:
Also for Apostacy:… four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; …
… The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed. …
G
Genesis315
Guest
This is where the theological notes and their corresponding censures come in handy (it is a shame they have been too often neglected since Vatican II–even Rahner lamented this).
Those doctrines that must be “definitively held” because, while not strictly revealed, are necessarily connected to revealed truth, are those that must be believed with “ecclesiastical faith” rather than “divine faith.”
Denial of those that must be held with ecclesiastical faith is a kind of heresy in a broader sense as Fr. Cartechini explains in his famous work on the theological notes from the early 1950s. He says such a denial would “seem to be heresy not in the strict sense according as it is against divine faith, but in a broader sense in so far as it is against ecclesiastical faith.”
This is why the commentary on the Profesio Fidei says such a denial separates one from full communion.
Those doctrines that must be “definitively held” because, while not strictly revealed, are necessarily connected to revealed truth, are those that must be believed with “ecclesiastical faith” rather than “divine faith.”
Denial of those that must be held with ecclesiastical faith is a kind of heresy in a broader sense as Fr. Cartechini explains in his famous work on the theological notes from the early 1950s. He says such a denial would “seem to be heresy not in the strict sense according as it is against divine faith, but in a broader sense in so far as it is against ecclesiastical faith.”
This is why the commentary on the Profesio Fidei says such a denial separates one from full communion.
Last edited:
H
Humility
Guest
So, if a person knew they could be excommunicated latae sententiae (or was told that by someone at some point, but they didn’t really believe the person) for heresy and then the person publicly denied one of those divinely held doctrines you mentioned (knowing the same person who told them about latae sententiae excommunication would think what they were doing was heretical, but still not believing it was or really understanding what latae sententiae excommunication is, possibly through supine ignorance, because they didn’t do enough follow up research to learn about it), would the person in fact incur excommunication?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.