mommas_boy Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 "Heretic" is definitely strong. Actually, I tend to use "heretic" more for Catholics than for non-Catholics (for example, Nancy Pelosi is a "heretic" because she has been warned for her stances, but persists in them nonetheless). Schismatic, too. I think because this sounds like "Heretic". I don't like "separated brethren", because it first brings to mind "separated". Instead, I prefer "our protestant brothers and sisters" when referring to the group at large. It doesn't have the word "separate" in it, still distinguishes that they are of the protestant tradition, and emphasizes our unity in Christ. When referring to just one person, I would probably just say, "So and so is a protestant", because it's simpler, and would make them feel less awkward than anything else. I feel that I can do a lot more to include them with actions and non-verbals than I can by tacking on some ecumenical phraseology at that point.
Formosus Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='25 October 2009 - 04:00 AM' timestamp='1256454049' post='1991027'] What do you think is better when describing non-Catholics. Heretic and schismatic or separated brethren? Smooch up or try to emphasis the gravity of their situation? Justify your answer. [/quote] Heretic can only apply if they once believed the faith and then rejected it. So if a non-Catholic once believed in the Holy Trinity, then rejected that belief, then they could be labeled a heretic. If a non-Catholic was born a protestant, and never believed in the Eucharist, then they can not be called a heretic (though their view would still be heretical). In order to be a schismatic, one actually has to separate themselves willfully from the Church, so that doesn't apply to people who were never Catholic to begin with. Separated brethren is a fairly accurate term.
Winchester Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='25 October 2009 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1256454049' post='1991027'] What do you think is better when describing non-Catholics. Heretic and schismatic or separated brethren? Smooch up or try to emphasis the gravity of their situation? Justify your answer. [/quote] Only a Catholic can be a heretic, only a non-Catholic can be separated brethern. I'll have to think about schismatic.
Resurrexi Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='27 October 2009 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1256683012' post='1992342'] Only a Catholic can be a heretic, only a non-Catholic can be separated brethern. I'll have to think about schismatic. [/quote] A heretic is by definition non-Catholic.
Winchester Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 October 2009 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1256684283' post='1992347'] A heretic is by definition non-Catholic. [/quote] No, to be a heretic, one must be a Catholic. One doesn't cease to be Catholic because one becomes a heretic.
Resurrexi Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='27 October 2009 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1256685680' post='1992364'] No, to be a heretic, one must be a Catholic. One doesn't cease to be Catholic because one becomes a heretic. [/quote] One excommunicates himself when he becomes a heretic (cf. CIC, can. 1364). An excommunicated person is cut off from communion with the Church.
Winchester Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 October 2009 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1256686964' post='1992386'] One excommunicates himself when he becomes a heretic (cf. CIC, can. 1364). An excommunicated person is cut off from communion with the Church. [/quote] Yes, he's a Catholic out of communion. The marks are indelible, however.
Resurrexi Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='27 October 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1256687116' post='1992390'] Yes, he's a Catholic out of communion. The marks are indelible, however. [/quote] Baptism and certainly imprints an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient of that sacrament; however, I would hardly call someone who was baptized as an adult in a Protestant ceremony a Catholic.
Winchester Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='27 October 2009 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1256687377' post='1992393'] Baptism and certainly imprints an indelible mark on the soul of the recipient of that sacrament; however, I would hardly call someone who was baptized as an adult in a Protestant ceremony a Catholic. [/quote] You forget confirmation? And Baptism in the name of the Trinity in any church is accepted by the Church. It does not make one a Catholic, I agree. One can never cease to be a Catholic.
Apotheoun Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Anyone who is baptized and who rejects the faith - as a whole or in part - is either a material or formal heretic.
Winchester Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 If I commit a mortal sin, I only need go to confession and I may receive communion again, assuming I have received that sacrament. Because I am Catholic but out of communion whilst in a state of mortal sin. I never cease being Catholic. In fact, after Confirmation, it is beyond my power to cease being Catholic. If I am not a Catholic, I must go through RCIA to become one (as is the current practice--the method isn't dogmatic). I may not simply go to confession and then receive communion. Because I am not Catholic at all.
Winchester Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='27 October 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1256687877' post='1992396'] Anyone who is baptized and who rejects the faith - as a whole or in part - is either a material or formal heretic. [/quote] In which case, separated brethern would be a specific sort of heretic?
Apotheoun Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='27 October 2009 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1256688116' post='1992398'] In which case, separated brethern would be a specific sort of heretic? [/quote] Most Protestants, and I say this as a former Protestant, are material heretics. I was a material heretic prior to my conversion, while the Protestant Reformers were - in most cases - formal heretics.
Winchester Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='27 October 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1256688434' post='1992401'] Most Protestants, and I say this as a former Protestant, are material heretics. I was a material heretic prior to my conversion, while the Protestant Reformers were - in most cases - formal heretics. [/quote] Curses! I remember these terms. My original summary is inexact but true in a sense.
KnightofChrist Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Does once Catholic always Catholic sound a little too much like once saved always saved? True the two are not exactly the same. But when one really sits and thinks of the words "Catholic Heretic" or "Catholic Schismatic" do those words together make since logical? A heretic or schismatic is outside the Catholic Church, [b]cut off.[/b] Cut off, and outside the Church are important to understand if those who fall under that are actually catholic. A catholic is of the Catholic Church, if one is cut off outside, how can they be part of something in which they are not a part? A heretic or schismatic can repent and become Catholic again. Just as someone can repent and become saved again. So long as they remain until the end.
Apotheoun Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 It is baptism, and not the title "Catholic," that is important in answering this question, because anyone who is validly baptized, but who rejects the faith - in whole or in part - is either a formal or material heretic.
Apotheoun Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='27 October 2009 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1256688669' post='1992403'] Curses! I remember these terms. My original summary is inexact but true in a sense. [/quote]
KnightofChrist Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='27 October 2009 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1256689129' post='1992414'] It is baptism, and not the title "Catholic," that is important in answering this question, because anyone who is validly baptized, but who rejects the faith - in whole or in part - is either a formal or material heretic. [/quote] That makes sense.
Winchester Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='27 October 2009 - 08:15 PM' timestamp='1256688955' post='1992411'] Does once Catholic always Catholic sound a little too much like once saved always saved? True the two are not exactly the same. But when one really sits and thinks of the words "Catholic Heretic" or "Catholic Schismatic" do those words together make since logical? A heretic or schismatic is outside the Catholic Church, [b]cut off.[/b] Cut off, and outside the Church are important to understand if those who fall under that are actually catholic. A catholic is of the Catholic Church, if one is cut off outside, how can they be part of something in which they are not a part? A heretic or schismatic can repent and become Catholic again. Just as someone can repent and become saved again. So long as they remain until the end. [/quote] They can return to communion. Their sacraments are still valid. They don't become a non-Catholic. Catholic can go to Hell, just like professional wrestlers and power company executives.
OraProMe Posted October 28, 2009 Author Posted October 28, 2009 Why did the Church refer to Protestants and the Orthodox as heretics and schismatic then? I agree with Apo, there is a distinction between material and formal heresy.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now