Catholics Who Critisize Catholics

[socalscout]

It's the Pope's job to appoint and check bishops. Calling a bishop a conservative, moderate, or liberal are opinions and are very different than judging a bishop and labeling him to be a heretic. Heretic is a very strong word that implies something horrible and to be used wrongly is very disrespectful. The power to judge comes with authority and other than God only specific people in a society, outlined by scripture, have the right to judge. Discernment is one thing, but passing judgement on a bishop, which is a finite action, is not a right of the laity.

Dude we are simpatico on that one. I notice that we like to throw that word, heretic, around. I never heard anyone use it except for the lay.

[M.SIGGA]

Dude we are simpatico on that one. I notice that we like to throw that word, heretic, around. I never heard anyone use it except for the lay.

not in reference to bishops.

[jasJis]

The Laity is WAY too over anxious to criticize other Catholics (including Clergy) and forget to temper themselves with charity, humility, patience, and respect for the Graces provided through the Sacrament Holy Orders.

Frankly, personally witnessing people criticizing priests, Bishops, and the Church with apparent glee and ease, smacks of Protestantism more than people holding hands during the Our Father. (And I'm not talking about just people on-line, I'm talking about real-life people in my parish. Frightening.)

[christopher]

I agree with these ideas completely. Do you know why? Hmmm... Maybe because I'm actually a Catholic. It's like going to Mass and seeing someone genuflect and saying "Mom, look a Catholic!!!!!"

The point is what can we DO to help nurture reverence in God's house without totally leaving to attend only Latin Masses(although I would probably if I could)? Just two days ago I spoke with our very wonderful priest and he agreed competely with a touch of resentment about people not listening(as he has preached about everything like genuflecting about six times last year). This is what we must do. Speak with our priests, bishops, anyone in charge,RCIA teachers(who are BAD examples a lot). Also let us gracefully set the example and know that you all are not alone in this!

Also, yes, let us pray for vocations. There are communities for both men and women where you will not find that kind of disrespect, most of them giving the Novus Ordo even. I might suggest looking into them. One is Society of St. John Cantius in Chicago(for men at least). I'm going there on St Valentine's Day. They give Tridentine, N.O., and N.O. in Latin, and are investigating other rites as well. They are approved by the bishop. Pax Christi.

[Laudate_Dominum]

It's the Pope's job to appoint and check bishops. Calling a bishop a conservative, moderate, or liberal are opinions and are very different than judging a bishop and labeling him to be a heretic. Heretic is a very strong word that implies something horrible and to be used wrongly is very disrespectful. The power to judge comes with authority and other than God only specific people in a society, outlined by scripture, have the right to judge. Discernment is one thing, but passing judgement on a bishop, which is a finite action, is not a right of the laity.

I agree, I am just a layman so it is not my place to declare a heretic. But the church defines heresy for a reason and if a person (lay, priest, Bishop) is saying something that has been condemned he is spouting off heresy I don't think it's a big deal to say that. The priest who preaches that Christ only had a human nature is preaching a heresy, he's a heretic. I'm in no way applying people should be imprudent, uncharitable, or any other bad thing. I'm simply saying that we can and should make judgements about heresy and liberalism. For example I had a theology class with a teacher who repeatly taught doctrines that I knew to be formally condemned by the Church. I charitable approached the teacher, assuming he was perhaps ignorant that the Church had condemned these positions, I found out the teacher knew they were condemned and heard some new heretical statements that were even more frightening than the first ones. After that I judged that this professor was liberal and heretical and decided not to take their classes anymore. Was this wrong? Had the professor been a Bishop would this have been wrong?

[M.SIGGA]

If your discernment lead you to leave the class, fine. You attempted to instruct the ignorant, fine. Do you have the right to pronounce judgement on him as being a heretic, no. Liberal or Progressive, yes, but not a Heretic.

The Inquisition existed as a court seperate from civil courts because there is a scriptural understanding that no member of the laity can judge and label people as heretics outside the Church.

Heresy is a serious charge and is a means for excommunication, so when talking in reference to members of the clergy especially, it can be extremely damaging to use that term if the Pope doesn't judge them to be a heretic. That's what might be sinful on your part.

Hierarchies exist in institutions so people can be checked by their superiors, so take everything with charity and don't overstep your role as a member of the laity.

I agree, I am just a layman so it is not my place to declare a heretic. But the church defines heresy for a reason and if a person (lay, priest, Bishop) is saying something that has been condemned he is spouting off heresy I don't think it's a big deal to say that.

btw this is a contradicting statement. It's not your place, but it's not a big deal ? Please clarify.

[socalscout]

not in reference to bishops.

When I say "we" I mean the laity. We like to throw "heretic" around.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If your discernment lead you to leave the class, fine. You attempted to instruct the ignorant, fine. Do you have the right to pronounce judgement on him as being a heretic, no. Liberal or Progressive, yes, but not a Heretic.

My point was that I didn't pronounce judgement on them as a heretic, the Church did. I simply acknowledged that they hold a view which the Church condemned as heresy. So I'm not declaring them a heretic the Church has already done that, I'm just acknowledging it.

I probably do use the word heresy a little too freely, I'll grant that. But on the other hand there are times when it is important, such as the heretical professor incident. Heresy is just a technical term for bad doctrine anyway, it's not like it's a bad word or something. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with the word than most people. If someone thinking of taking a class with that professor asked me my opinion of them I would certainly say the truth. I would say, "when I had that teacher they were presenting systematic defenses of condemned heresy."

[PedroX]

Laudate,

The question comes back to whether or not you believe in apostolic succession, and episcopal authority. How can we on the one hand say that our Bishop is the head of our local church, and on the other a heretic? Can a Bishop make mistakes? Absolutely! Do we have the authority to call him a heretic? No! As M. Sigga pointed out, heresy is a specific charge that the laity is not qualified to make. That is up to the Congregation for Defense of the Faith, an ecumenical Council or the Pope. We do have options. We are not obliged to obey rules that contradict the laws of God. However, we can not describe ourselves as faithful Catholics and be at war with our Bishops.

peace...

[Laudate_Dominum]

The question comes back to whether or not you believe in apostolic succession, and episcopal authority. How can we on the one hand say that our Bishop is the head of our local church, and on the other a heretic? Can a Bishop make mistakes? Absolutely! Do we have the authority to call him a heretic? No! As M. Sigga pointed out, heresy is a specific charge that the laity is not qualified to make. That is up to the Congregation for Defense of the Faith, an ecumenical Council or the Pope. We do have options. We are not obliged to obey rules that contradict the laws of God. However, we can not describe ourselves as faithful Catholics and be at war with our Bishops.

For the record, of course I believe in everything that the Holy Catholic Church teaches!!!! And I like to think I'd take that to the stake and pyre if I had to.

First of all I never, in any of my posts, called a particular Bishop a heretic. I made references to the existence of heretical clergy in general, which is an undeniable fact. And second, ordination as a priest of Bishop does not make one infallible. Most of the arch-heretics were Bishops and priests. Arius and Nestorius being a couple of big names. Third, I am not aware of any Church statement which says the laity are not allowed to call heresy heresy, or heretics heretics. Certainly we don't have the authority to "charge" someone with heresy, that is a juridical function that we do not possess. Neither can we declare heresy, we can't define doctrine. But once heresy is defined we can and should beware of it. I'm not really saying anything that extraordinary. If my Bishop were to publicly endorse homosexual unions, I'd feel an obligation, because of the countless faithful that would be led astray and the scandal that would be caused, to at least write him a letter concerning this heresy. I'm not going to rally outside the cathedral with a big heretic sign or something. Obviously we should be obedient and respectful of the clergy, they are men who have given their lives to serve Christ's Church. They have renounced so much in order to feed and guide us. And who am I to criticize an apostle!! But, a Bishop is not infallible (except one under certain conditions), they can be just as heretical as any of us. Ack! Nevermind.. I don't think this is going anywhere.. Obviously the word heretic is just too strong for some people.

This is all I'm trying to say:

Bishops can teach false doctrine, who can deny this? When this happens it is most serious. Laity too can read and understand things. If a lay person reads statements from a bishop that correspond to statements of condemned heresy, he can infer that these statements are bad doctrine. If some rogue bishop is willfully spreading bad doctrine, in oposition to the official Magisterium of the Church, he can rightfully be considered a bad doctrine guy, a.k.a. a heretic.

That is all I'm saying for crying out loud. But I get the message, I'll watch my use of the word heretic around you folks.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Heretic = One who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's from a dictionary. So if you want to get technical we can rightfully call anyone, lay or clergy, a heretic so long as they publicly dissent from official Church teachings. In fact we should call them heretics! It's charitable because they need to hear it. Dissenter is not a strong enough word. In the past people who are now often called dissenters were simply called heretics. Dissent means you differ in opinion. To call a heretic a dissenter is to imply that the Church's dogmatic teachings are not binding but are merely an opinion that can change.

Edited January 22, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[M.SIGGA]

whatever, it's your free will.

[Laudate_Dominum]

On the flip side, if I ever say anything that doesn't jive with dogma, you can call me a heretic! In fact, please do! If I ever spout off heresy I would hope that someone would correct my error! It's a work of mercy. If you just can't make yourself use the word heretic you could just say "is that your breath or do I smell bad doctrine?"

[Laudate_Dominum]

For the sake of clarity, and because I don't want people to read into what I was saying allow me to make a brief statement.

While I am not above refering to "heretical clergy" in a kind of abstract, general sense. And while I'm not above privately and prudently informing a clergyman of some heresy he might be publicly promoting if I am aware of it and it is a sufficiently serious matter. I hold that ONE SHOULD NEVER DISRESPECT A PRIEST OF BISHOP. I just want that to be clear. I do not advocate disobedience, dissent, publicly criticizing a Bishop, or being rude, disrespectful or in any way uncharitable toward clergy.

Amen.

P.S. I still support the free use of the words heresy and heretic. I think a revival of these words would be grand. See my post about heretic vs. dissenter above.

[jasJis]

Personally, I think "heretic" is used too freely by the Lay. It assumes an extrordinary level knowledge of the subject, the facts of the matter, the person, etc., and leaves little room for humility, respect, or charity.

I take my cue from what I hear and read of Catholic theologians (lay and clergy), preists, teachers, etc.

Read your own definition of Heretic. 'Publically dissenting on dogma.'

In order to judge someone a heretic you must establish:

1- The person understands the Church Dogma. (In order to do establish that, you should also be absolutely sure you understand the particular Dogma absolutely correctly.)

2- You must understand what the person is stating or attempting to state. This means you must have discussed with them. You can't judge on tertiary evidence, heresay, or second hand quotes. You also must have had any questions clarified and have given the person the opportunity to explain and address your misgivings.

3- The person, with full knowledge of Dogma, with full knowledge of their disagreement with Dogma, still professes the dissent.

Short of meeting the above criteria, they just may be humanly wrong in their understanding of Dogma and/or how they are being understood by others, or you may be wrong in your understanding of Dogma and/or wrong in understanding what the other is attempting to communicate.

If you've got that covered, knock yourself out with the heretic labels. ;)

[Laudate_Dominum]

That's false dude. Those criteria would be for a formal excommunication based on the heretical views. It does not take a theologian to recognize heresy. It's quite easy. The Church has defined many, many "anathemas", they are simple and easy to use. (example. "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, anathema sit." - Trent) So if I hear a guy say "baptism is optional, it's not necessary for salvation." I can say "dude, that's heresy". If he says "that's my view man" and starts trying to verse slang or something, I've got a clear cut heretic on my hands. It's not a dirty word for crying out loud.

And remember the distinction between a material heretic and a formal heretic. The guy in the example above is more like a formal heretic because he was informed that the position was heresy yet persisted in it. Before he was aware he was simply a material heretic which is a heretic nonetheless.

It doesn't take special authority, it's our basic duty as Catholics to recognize heresy and avoid it. Recall my example several posts back about the heretical Theology professor, that's a clear example of when we it's good to recognize heresy. Obviously if you don't know that much about it and aren't certain that a person is uttering heresy or if you may be misunderstanding them, give them the benefit of the doubt, but in the explicit and obvious cases, call a spade a spade for crying out loud.

I'm getting burned out on this thread man.. What is driving me crazy is that everyone keeps saying stuff like this:

leaves little room for humility, respect, or charity.

Recognizing heresy in itself (which is what I'm talking about) is neither prideful, disrespectful, or uncharitable. In fact recognizing a heretic and doing something about it should include humility, respect and charity.

Why do so many people seem to have the idea that the word heresy = uncharitble bigotry. It's just a fact of life people.

And what the heck, who in the Church has never left a strange homily or a debate with a protestant and at least thought to themselves "dang, that was some extreme heresy"??

If I were to say right now, "Jesus isn't God" or "the Pope isn't infallible" wouldn't the word (or at least the concept) of heresy pop into your mind. Maybe bad doctrine, error, or something else meaning heresy. Go to the Mel Gibson thread, people are calling him a heretic right now because he rejects the Pope or something. It's natural, it's normal, it's not bad, if done with humility and charity its amesome and virtuous! Plenty of people have done it, clergy and laity, men and women, saints and vile sinners. Wee!!!!!!!!!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm sorry, this thread is making me loose it. I think I'd better fold. Peace.