|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 4, 2023 18:09:02 GMT
Or to be more precise, at what point on a spectrum of belief versus non-belief, acceptance versus non-acceptance, can a Catholic be said to have lost the faith, to have become a heretic (assuming those are one and the same thing), and to have separated themselves from the unity of the Church?
And what makes that point a Rubicon of sorts?
For instance, does someone who denies that contraception is a sin, who denies that "each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life", cease to be a Catholic? If so, why, and if not, why not?
Or let's say that someone denies that a valid marriage is indissoluble, who says that the Church's sacramental theology on this matter is wrong. Same questions.
Or let's say that someone denies that Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, who says that It is only a symbol and a memorial. Same questions.
Or let's say that someone, arguendo, denies that murder is wrong, says that the Bible is wrong, that "some people just need killing". Again, same questions.
IOW, how far can you take dissent from something that the Church clearly and authoritatively teaches, with no possibility of different interpretation, and still remain a Catholic?
And what if they protest and say "oh, I'm still a Catholic, I just think that I'm right and the Church is wrong"?
Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 4, 2023 23:10:58 GMT
If you're baptized Catholic, you're Catholic from then on.
If you commit sin, you're a sinful Catholic.
And if we aren't talking about our respective selves personally, this is neither our call to make, nor our business.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 5, 2023 1:33:51 GMT
If you're baptized Catholic, you're Catholic from then on. If you commit sin, you're a sinful Catholic. And if we aren't talking about our respective selves personally, this is neither our call to make, nor our business. Yes, I see what you mean, and that is why I have bristled at the suggestion "when someone rejects the Church's teaching on X --- even if that rejection does not rise to the level of heresy (the second of two aspects to my inquiry, viz. "how bad does it have to be, to become heresy?") --- then they cease to be a Catholic". You'll hear that sometimes. Bearing (no pun intended, sorry, I read what I had just written and couldn't resist) in mind what you say, then, to dismiss someone as "not a Catholic anymore" is a bit wide of the mark. I do submit, though, that there can be situations, and not just a few, when someone's embracing of heresy (or even error short of heresy) becomes "our business", for instance: - When a bishop, priest, or someone else entrusted with the magisterial authority of the Church, is teaching either heresy or some error short of heresy
- When someone for whom I am responsible (such as one's child) is being taught by such a person
- When a Catholic in political or public life is taking positions contrary to the Church's teachings, and misleading others into thinking that this is an acceptable stance for a Catholic (looking at you, Biden and Pelosi)
- If I am a bishop and am having to discern whether one of my seminarians should be ordained to the priesthood
- When it is someone upon whom fraternal correction would work, and I am capable of providing such correction
I'm sure there are more examples, but these are the first that come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 5, 2023 9:19:41 GMT
If somebody. Including a catechist, bishop etc is creating an occasion of sin for you or your child, you can simply stop at the point of saying "he is wrong, he is committing error, let us step away from that and pray for him" without trying to determine whether he is still Catholic (which if validly baptized Catholic, he still is).
I realize Paprocki is in the news calling McElroy heretical, this is inter-bishop stuff and it's what bishops do as part of their job going clear back to when St Nicholas punched Arius.
I personally don't need to decide if McElroy is heretical in order to simply say that he, and Hollerich, and Batzing etc have some bizarre ideas on doctrine that do not comport with the teaching of the Church and should not be followed.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 6, 2023 17:01:00 GMT
I believe the old saying is true, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic". Just as you cannot become unbaptised you cannot cease to be a Catholic.
You could always look to what the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism say about heresy and heretics to determine what would cause one to become one.
However, a heretic would be a heretical Catholic. He/she would be a Catholic but in a state of grave sin.
Of course, an individual may deny all Catholic beliefs and not participate in any Catholic practices but that person is still a Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 7, 2023 0:01:39 GMT
I believe the old saying is true, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic". Just as you cannot become unbaptised you cannot cease to be a Catholic. You could always look to what the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism say about heresy and heretics to determine what would cause one to become one. However, a heretic would be a heretical Catholic. He/she would be a Catholic but in a state of grave sin. Of course, an individual may deny all Catholic beliefs and not participate in any Catholic practices but that person is still a Catholic. The two questions here that beg to be answered are: (1) Do all heretics, even those who say "yes, I know that my assertions are something different than what the Church teaches, and I don't care, I'm right and the Church is wrong", remain Catholics? The answer seems to be yes. Did Martin Luther, then, remain a Catholic until his dying day? His followers who had been baptized as Catholics and only embraced his heresies later? Their children? And their children? IOW, when did these people cease to be Catholics? (Once upon a time, I had a fascinating article called "Are Protestants Catholics?", published around the beginning of the 20th century, and the author took the position that they were. If I ever find it, I'll be sure to pass it on. It's here somewhere, unless I discarded or lost it. I've got a lot of books, a lot of papers, and a lot of computer files, 30+ years' worth of the latter, almost 50 years' worth of the others.) (2) And getting back to one aspect of my original post, and one we really haven't discussed yet in this thread, "at what Point X does a teaching of the Catholic Church become so binding in faith, that denial of it becomes heresy?". Something in the Apostles' Creed? Something in one of the other creeds? Something always taught and believed by all? Any moral teachings? Only those explicitly spelled out in the Ten Commandments? Or sins that can be deduced from those commandments (e.g., the litany of sexual sins that can be inferred from the Sixth and Ninth Commandments)? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure that the CIC or the CCC give clear guidance on this. CCC 2089 says: "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."
To which I would then ask "such as...?"
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Mar 7, 2023 0:22:10 GMT
An extreme historical case of this was the Mortara affair. www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/01/31/vatican-kidnapped-jewish-boy-1858-why-are-we-still-talking-about-itAlso, in Germany, Catholics are obligated to pay a Church Tax by law. Until recently, you had to pay it if you were a baptized Catholic, regardless if you considered yourself Catholic or not. There was a big international scandal after 2004, when Poles started entering the German workforce in large numbers, and soon found themselves subject to the Church tax, even if they did not declare themselves as Catholics. Turns out that the German Church got a hold of the list of Polish workers in Poland, and sent it off to their Polish counterparts to determine who had been baptized or not, and then reporting them to the tax authority. Benedict XVI came up with a "solution" that one could officially leave the Church by going through an onerous, harrowing and humiliating process that required several visits to the parish where one was baptized, to be subjected to a high pressure talk not to leave the Church. However, that ended after a few years when someone finally pointed out to the Pope Benedict that that was theologically indefensible and incompatible with Canon Law. The sort of Canon Law that even a Pope cannot change. Finally, the state made it possible to opt out of the tax. The German Church Tax is why the German Church is so rich compared to the Church in other countries, and, along with American dollars, subsidizes the Church in most other countries. Practicaally none of the churches in South and Central America, Asia, Africa and Eastern and Southern Europe are self sufficient. Even the Church in wealthy Denmark is subsidized by Germany. That explains why the Vatican is extremely skittish about alienating German Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 7, 2023 1:10:31 GMT
An extreme historical case of this was the Mortara affair. www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/01/31/vatican-kidnapped-jewish-boy-1858-why-are-we-still-talking-about-itAlso, in Germany, Catholics are obligated to pay a Church Tax by law. Until recently, you had to pay it if you were a baptized Catholic, regardless if you considered yourself Catholic or not. There was a big international scandal after 2004, when Poles started entering the German workforce in large numbers, and soon found themselves subject to the Church tax, even if they did not declare themselves as Catholics. Turns out that the German Church got a hold of the list of Polish workers in Poland, and sent it off to their Polish counterparts to determine who had been baptized or not, and then reporting them to the tax authority. Benedict XVI came up with a "solution" that one could officially leave the Church by going through an onerous, harrowing and humiliating process that required several visits to the parish where one was baptized, to be subjected to a high pressure talk not to leave the Church. However, that ended after a few years when someone finally pointed out to the Pope Benedict that that was theologically indefensible and incompatible with Canon Law. The sort of Canon Law that even a Pope cannot change. Finally, the state made it possible to opt out of the tax. The German Church Tax is why the German Church is so rich compared to the Church in other countries, and, along with American dollars, subsidizes the Church in most other countries. Practicaally none of the churches in South and Central America, Asia, Africa and Eastern and Southern Europe are self sufficient. Even the Church in wealthy Denmark is subsidized by Germany. That explains why the Vatican is extremely skittish about alienating German Catholics. Just out of curiosity, does this dovetail in any way --- and not just in Germany --- with the provision that existed for a time, IIRC under Benedict, that Catholics who "left the Church by a formal act" (or words to that effect) were not bound by Catholic precepts on marriage (such as canonical form) and could marry validly in the same fashion as non-Catholics (whose marriages are, ceteris paribus, held as valid by the Catholic Church)? This was later rescinded, but for a few years, "ex-Catholics" could marry validly outside the Church. Now, they cannot, but then, they could. And got to ask, if a Catholic did marry in that fashion, could their marriage be declared null (if a petition for nullity were filed, e.g. if they wish to divorce the spouse they married under these provision) on grounds of lack of canonical form?
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Mar 7, 2023 1:44:48 GMT
Yes, it was connected, and that was one of the theological problems.
As to those marriages, they are presumed valid now. I don't know whether they would be annulled if challenged. I don't know of any test cases.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Mar 7, 2023 1:56:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 7, 2023 5:39:31 GMT
Thank you for providing this. Here is the relevant portion of the act: The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church "by a formal act" are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124). The underlying aim of this exception from the general norm of can. 11 was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult.
Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, "clandestine" marriages.
In light of the above, and after carefully considering the views of the Fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, as well as those of the Bishops' Conferences consulted with regard to the pastoral advantage of retaining or abrogating this exception from the general norm of can. 11, it appeared necessary to eliminate this norm which had been introduced into the corpus of canon law now in force.
Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1117); "and has not left it by means of a formal act" (can. 1086 ยง 1); "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1124).Absent this provision, which has now been eliminated, a Catholic who has been so unfortunate (and unwise) as to take up with a non-Catholic sect, and to marry within that sect, has a marriage that is ipso facto invalid, and if they were to return to the active practice of the Faith, they would not be "trapped" in a marriage which they had contracted while "away from the Church". While convalidation would be a fairly simple procedure (assuming that both putative spouses were free to marry within the Church), and might be more desirable --- especially if children were involved --- at the end of the day, the Catholic is not "stuck" if they do not want to be, and I can foresee circumstances where the Catholic would want to get out of the marriage (spouse who disapproved of them returning to the Church, spouse who refused to respect the Catholic party's adherence to Catholic moral principles regarding marriage, etc.). That temporary provision for allowing Catholics to leave the Church "by a formal act" caused more problems than it solved, and it needed to go. Thankfully, "by a formal act" was considerably more complicated than just taking up with another ecclesial body and making one's spiritual home there.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 7, 2023 15:06:56 GMT
I believe the old saying is true, "Once a Catholic always a Catholic". Just as you cannot become unbaptised you cannot cease to be a Catholic. You could always look to what the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism say about heresy and heretics to determine what would cause one to become one. However, a heretic would be a heretical Catholic. He/she would be a Catholic but in a state of grave sin. Of course, an individual may deny all Catholic beliefs and not participate in any Catholic practices but that person is still a Catholic. The two questions here that beg to be answered are: (1) Do all heretics, even those who say "yes, I know that my assertions are something different than what the Church teaches, and I don't care, I'm right and the Church is wrong", remain Catholics? The answer seems to be yes. Did Martin Luther, then, remain a Catholic until his dying day? His followers who had been baptized as Catholics and only embraced his heresies later? Their children? And their children? IOW, when did these people cease to be Catholics? (Once upon a time, I had a fascinating article called "Are Protestants Catholics?", published around the beginning of the 20th century, and the author took the position that they were. If I ever find it, I'll be sure to pass it on. It's here somewhere, unless I discarded or lost it. I've got a lot of books, a lot of papers, and a lot of computer files, 30+ years' worth of the latter, almost 50 years' worth of the others.) (2) And getting back to one aspect of my original post, and one we really haven't discussed yet in this thread, "at what Point X does a teaching of the Catholic Church become so binding in faith, that denial of it becomes heresy?". Something in the Apostles' Creed? Something in one of the other creeds? Something always taught and believed by all? Any moral teachings? Only those explicitly spelled out in the Ten Commandments? Or sins that can be deduced from those commandments (e.g., the litany of sexual sins that can be inferred from the Sixth and Ninth Commandments)? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure that the CIC or the CCC give clear guidance on this. CCC 2089 says: "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."
To which I would then ask "such as...?"I do believe your original question has been answered and now you've extended the question. The basic answer is once a Catholic always a Catholic.
Theology is not my subject so I would be getting out of my depth to stray into other areas of your question. Certainly the first protesters of the Protestant Reformation were Catholics. Nowadays we have non-Catholic Christians we broadly label as Protestants. At what point in the evolution from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first did people no longer count as Catholics and became Protestant? That is not a question I am qualified to answer. However, it is a very interesting question to which I, too, would like to know the answer.
In various places I have read that baptised non-Catholic Christians are Catholic but they just do not know it yet. I believe we are all Catholics in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 7, 2023 15:38:58 GMT
The two questions here that beg to be answered are: (1) Do all heretics, even those who say "yes, I know that my assertions are something different than what the Church teaches, and I don't care, I'm right and the Church is wrong", remain Catholics? The answer seems to be yes. Did Martin Luther, then, remain a Catholic until his dying day? His followers who had been baptized as Catholics and only embraced his heresies later? Their children? And their children? IOW, when did these people cease to be Catholics? (Once upon a time, I had a fascinating article called "Are Protestants Catholics?", published around the beginning of the 20th century, and the author took the position that they were. If I ever find it, I'll be sure to pass it on. It's here somewhere, unless I discarded or lost it. I've got a lot of books, a lot of papers, and a lot of computer files, 30+ years' worth of the latter, almost 50 years' worth of the others.) (2) And getting back to one aspect of my original post, and one we really haven't discussed yet in this thread, "at what Point X does a teaching of the Catholic Church become so binding in faith, that denial of it becomes heresy?". Something in the Apostles' Creed? Something in one of the other creeds? Something always taught and believed by all? Any moral teachings? Only those explicitly spelled out in the Ten Commandments? Or sins that can be deduced from those commandments (e.g., the litany of sexual sins that can be inferred from the Sixth and Ninth Commandments)? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure that the CIC or the CCC give clear guidance on this. CCC 2089 says: "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."
To which I would then ask "such as...?"I do believe your original question has been answered and now you've extended the question. The basic answer is once a Catholic always a Catholic.
Theology is not my subject so I would be getting out of my depth to stray into other areas of your question. Certainly the first protesters of the Protestant Reformation were Catholics. Nowadays we have non-Catholic Christians we broadly label as Protestants. At what point in the evolution from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first did people no longer count as Catholics and became Protestant? That is not a question I am qualified to answer. However, it is a very interesting question to which I, too, would like to know the answer.
In various places I have read that baptised non-Catholic Christians are Catholic but they just do not know it yet. I believe we are all Catholics in heaven.
No, the question had two related but distinct facets, "do heretics cease to be Catholics?" and "what makes someone a heretic?". We've beaten the former to death, and barely touched upon the latter. Perhaps it should have been two separate threads. The question in your second paragraph is a very, very good one, and again, in that article I can't find, the author affirmed that all baptized Christians are, indeed, Catholics. I actually do not have a major problem with that reasoning, and this was no frothy blue-sky piece from America or Commonweal in the heady days of the 1970s, no, it was written over 100 years ago. I've long maintained that, even if they did not come right out and say it in so many words, or used more diplomatic words to express it, Vatican II basically said "all Christians are part of the Catholic Church, even if they differ from us in terms of theology, whether they want to be or not". Among other things, you solve a big chunk of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus problem right then and there --- because they're intra ecclesiam after all! Better stop there before Susan from the Parish Council reads this and calls to invite me to serve on the Synodal Accompaniment Committee for the Ecumenical Peripheries or some such.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 10, 2023 15:42:37 GMT
I do believe your original question has been answered and now you've extended the question. The basic answer is once a Catholic always a Catholic.
Theology is not my subject so I would be getting out of my depth to stray into other areas of your question. Certainly the first protesters of the Protestant Reformation were Catholics. Nowadays we have non-Catholic Christians we broadly label as Protestants. At what point in the evolution from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first did people no longer count as Catholics and became Protestant? That is not a question I am qualified to answer. However, it is a very interesting question to which I, too, would like to know the answer.
In various places I have read that baptised non-Catholic Christians are Catholic but they just do not know it yet. I believe we are all Catholics in heaven.
No, the question had two related but distinct facets, "do heretics cease to be Catholics?" and "what makes someone a heretic?". We've beaten the former to death, and barely touched upon the latter. Perhaps it should have been two separate threads. The question in your second paragraph is a very, very good one, and again, in that article I can't find, the author affirmed that all baptized Christians are, indeed, Catholics. I actually do not have a major problem with that reasoning, and this was no frothy blue-sky piece from America or Commonweal in the heady days of the 1970s, no, it was written over 100 years ago. I've long maintained that, even if they did not come right out and say it in so many words, or used more diplomatic words to express it, Vatican II basically said "all Christians are part of the Catholic Church, even if they differ from us in terms of theology, whether they want to be or not". Among other things, you solve a big chunk of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus problem right then and there --- because they're intra ecclesiam after all! Better stop there before Susan from the Parish Council reads this and calls to invite me to serve on the Synodal Accompaniment Committee for the Ecumenical Peripheries or some such. The Code of Canon Law defines heresy: "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" (Can. 751).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses a similar definition: "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" (CCC 2089).
Also Wikipedia citing the definition of 'heresy' in Catholic Dictionary (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33902) states there are four components which constitute heresy:
1. the person in question must have had a valid Christian baptism; 2. the person claims to still be a Christian; 3. the person publicly and obstinately denies or positively doubts a truth that the Catholic Church regards as revealed by God (through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition); 4. the disbelief must be morally cupable, that is, there must be a refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative.
I think from these it should be possible to workout what causes heresy.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2023 16:09:37 GMT
No, the question had two related but distinct facets, "do heretics cease to be Catholics?" and "what makes someone a heretic?". We've beaten the former to death, and barely touched upon the latter. Perhaps it should have been two separate threads. The question in your second paragraph is a very, very good one, and again, in that article I can't find, the author affirmed that all baptized Christians are, indeed, Catholics. I actually do not have a major problem with that reasoning, and this was no frothy blue-sky piece from America or Commonweal in the heady days of the 1970s, no, it was written over 100 years ago. I've long maintained that, even if they did not come right out and say it in so many words, or used more diplomatic words to express it, Vatican II basically said "all Christians are part of the Catholic Church, even if they differ from us in terms of theology, whether they want to be or not". Among other things, you solve a big chunk of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus problem right then and there --- because they're intra ecclesiam after all! Better stop there before Susan from the Parish Council reads this and calls to invite me to serve on the Synodal Accompaniment Committee for the Ecumenical Peripheries or some such. The Code of Canon Law defines heresy: "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" (Can. 751).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses a similar definition: "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" (CCC 2089).
Also Wikipedia citing the definition of 'heresy' in Catholic Dictionary (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33902) states there are four components which constitute heresy:
1. the person in question must have had a valid Christian baptism; 2. the person claims to still be a Christian; 3. the person publicly and obstinately denies or positively doubts a truth that the Catholic Church regards as revealed by God (through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition); 4. the disbelief must be morally cupable, that is, there must be a refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative.
I think from these it should be possible to workout what causes heresy.
Fair enough, but WRT the following: #3 - How far up in a hierarchy of truths do we find things that are "revealed by God through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition"? The Scriptures, that's pretty much a given, but what constitutes "Sacred Tradition"? Transubstantiation? (Not the Real Presence itself, but the explanation of what it is, the "how", if you will.) Abortion at some Point X before birth (and where is that "Point X"?)? The indissolubility of marriage? Paul VI's teaching that "each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life"? Certain Catholic social teachings such as the principle of subsidiarity? "Sacred Tradition", and its limits, are kind of blurry sometimes. The Baltimore Catechism goes so far as to say that such things as paintings, inscriptions on tombs, and monuments are part of Sacred Tradition --- I had to furrow my brow at this one --- and that Sacred Tradition may be found in the history of the Church. The latter is a kind of circular reasoning, and that's hard for me to defend. I don't deny that Sacred Tradition is a fount of truth, I just question what exactly comprises it, and where you draw the line. #4 - So this pretty much "lets off the hook" anyone who perceives the nature of the Church to be something other than it is, such as your typical Protestant. They know (if they bother to look it up) that the Catholic Church teaches certain things they do not believe, but they do not regard the Catholic Church as having the authority to teach these things. As I always say, Protestantism does not so much teach positive error (in most things), as they fail to teach things that are true --- they just omit them.
|
|