What makes one a heretic?

[Son_of_Jonah]

This may not be the exact place to ask this question, but I couldn’t decide which sub-forum was most appropriate, so…

According to my understanding of heresy, based upon my study of the early Church, one is a heretic when one espouses beliefs that are contrary to Divine Revelation as spoken through the Church. Those who hold God is one, as opposed to the reality that He is Triune, for example, were regarded as heretics.

The reason I ask this question is that it seems either our thinking of heresy has changed in more modern times, or our communication and expression of such has changed out of charity, because according to the above, any non-Catholic whatsoever would be defined as a heretic. Almost all Protestants, for example, hold that consubstantiation - rather than Transubstantiation - takes place during a communion service, that bread and wine are symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice, and that the truth of His presence was never meant to be taken literally. Historically, this would make them heretics.

Has our understanding of heresy changed over the centuries, or am I correct in believing that, technically speaking, all non-Catholics are heretics in one form or another, and that we simply refrain from saying so out of charity and respect for their beliefs?

 

[snarflemike]

I’m pretty sure you have to be a Catholic to be a heretic.

 

[livingwordunity]

The original Protestants such as Luther were declared heretics because they were Catholics when they adopted views that were contrary to the Catholic Church. The new generations of Protestants aren’t called heretics because they were never Catholic and are considered to have a different religion. If a Catholic today adopts a view that is contrary to Catholic teaching they would be a heretic. If that same Catholic then officially leaves the Catholic Church and no longer claims to be Catholic then they would no longer be considered a heretic. Instead, they would be of a different religion.

 

[ejp123]

The original Protestants such as Luther were declared heretics because they were Catholics when they adopted views that were contrary to the Catholic Church. The new generations of Protestants aren’t called heretics because they were never Catholic and are considered to have a different religion. If a Catholic today adopts a view that is contrary to Catholic teaching they would be a heretic. If that same Catholic then officially leaves the Catholic Church and no longer claims to be Catholic then they would no longer be considered a heretic. Instead, they would be of a different religion.

would a liberal or cafeteria catholic be considered a heretic, then?

 

[josephback]

Has our understanding of heresy changed over the centuries, or am I correct in believing that, technically speaking, all non-Catholics are heretics in one form or another, and that we simply refrain from saying so out of charity and respect for their beliefs?

Those who in retrospect were most charitable to me were those who challenged my misconceptions. There is a right and wrong way to go about it (no one called me a heretic), but complete silence or avoidance of conflict isn’t truly charitable.

 

[grandfather]

The Church makes a distinction between formal and material heresy.

A person who asserts a doctrine that is contrary to the faith and is told by the Church that his or her belief is in error and asked to recant and refuses is declared to be in heresy, a formal heretic.

A person who believes this same false doctrine, having been taught by teachers or religious authority figures is considered to be in material heresy.

The word heretic is from the Greek and means a person who picks and chooses. The original understanding of heresy was to distinguish between people who accepted all the truths of faith from those who accepted some and rejected others according to their personal assessment, picking and choosing for themselves what they would or would not believe.

 

[thistle]

would a liberal or cafeteria catholic be considered a heretic, then?

What is a “liberal” Catholic? Pope Benedict told us to stop putting labels on people. He said we are all Catholics.
There are only two types of Catholic. Those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.

A Catholic who rejects one or more infallible teachings commits heresy and a mortal sin.
A Catholic who rejects one or more non-infallible teachings does not commit heresy but does commit a mortal sin.

 

[grandfather]

A Catholic who rejects one or more non-infallible teachings does not commit heresy but does commit a mortal sin.

What are non-infallible teachings?

 

[thistle]

What are non-infallible teachings?

Infallible teachings are those which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.
Rejecting an infallible teaching is heresy and a mortal sin.

Non-infallible (or Authoritative) are teachings which are not infallible but must be accepted with religious obedience of intellect and will.
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin.

 

[Jehannette]

I’m pretty sure you have to be a Catholic to be a heretic.

Heresy is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.”

It is also defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[MarcoPolo]

am I correct in believing that, technically speaking, all non-Catholics are heretics in one form or another, and that we simply refrain from saying so out of charity and respect for their beliefs?

Non-Catholics are not automatically heretics.

In order to be culpable of heresy, one must be aware of the trueness of the Catholic faith from which they depart doctrinally. Traditionally, you can see a good definition from Thomas Aquinas:
*The heretical tenets may be adhered to from involuntary causes: inculpable ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas. In none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore, one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely subjective or material.*In other words, if you are honest in not understanding the Catholic faith as the true faith, you are not guilty of heresy.

Also from Catholic Answers: *A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.*So if you honestly don’t recognize the Catholic Church as THE Church in the first place, I don’t think you can be guilty of heresy against it.

 

[Jehannette]

Just so everyone is clear, the Church does teach that one can be culpable for unbelief:

678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God’s grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

And, not everyone is “honestly searching” for the truth:

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

 

[grandfather]

Infallible teachings are those which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.
Rejecting an infallible teaching is heresy and a mortal sin.

Non-infallible (or Authoritative) are teachings which are not infallible but must be accepted with religious obedience of intellect and will.
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin.

Is that explained in the Catechism or from some dogmatic statement from the Church?

 

[thistle]

Is that explained in the Catechism or from some dogmatic statement from the Church?

What do you mean? Are you seeking definitions of infallible and non-infallible. I already gave you those.

 

[Jehannette]

Is that explained in the Catechism or from some dogmatic statement from the Church?

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[grandfather]

Jehannette:
Quote:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Does this make it a mortal sin if a person does not adhere with religious assent to an non-infallible definition? Is that defined somehwhere in the Catechism?

I think the Church teaches that people who die in mortal sin are eternally lost. The Church also teaches that non-Catholics, even non-believers, Muslims for example could be saved.

These are people who reject both fallible and infallible precepts of faith. So is it Catohlics only who go to hell for not obeying fallible teachings?

 

[grandfather]

What do you mean? Are you seeking definitions of infallible and non-infallible. I already gave you those.

I asked for the source of what you provided from some authority such as a Church document, or the catechism, .that confirms your statement that heresy is rejecting infallible teaching and disobeying fallible teaching is mortally sinful.

You may be correct. I don’t know, so I asked politely if you would explain how you came to this knowledge. I am not looking for an argument, but an explanation.

 

[Jehannette]

I asked for the source of what you provided from some authority such as a Church document, or the catechism, .that confirms your statement that heresy is rejecting infallible teaching and disobeying fallible teaching is mortally sinful.

You may be correct. I don’t know, so I asked politely if you would explain how you came to this knowledge. I am not looking for an argument, but an explanation.

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.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

 

[Eilrahc]

The Church’s stance on contraception is considered an “infallible teaching”, correct??