So Pax, Protestants (provided they never were Catholics) are NOT Heretics?
In my opinion, yes. You can't compare our current environment to the times of Trent, because back then, ALL protestants apostasized from Catholicism. Before Martin Luther, everyone was either a Catholic, a pagan, a Jew or Moslem.
But that's not true.
There always have been heresies. In the case of someone like the Cathars for instance, a community could go generations outside the Church.
Or even during the Arian crisis, or the not only schismatic but also heretical churches of the east, including my personal favourite Copts led by Pope Tawadros II, have been both in heresy and schism since 1500 years now.
However, NOWadays, someone can grow up protestant and there's so many different styles, who knows what they believe.
A heretic, by definition, is one who rejects some catholic truth. Currently, not all protestants reject catholicism; some grow up not even knowing anything about catholicism at all. This was not the case during the times of Luther/Trent.
This is not a new condition at all, what it is new is the idea one has to
first hold the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate and
then explicitly reject parts of it in order to be a heretic.
In fact, Catholic, as used above, does not mean specifically of the Catholic Church, but is synonymous with objective one and only True Faith.
Plus not true, in fact the majority of people professing to be Catholic (if no one except a canonised Saint, in retrospect) can be known to even ever have held the Faith perfectly, or 100% orthodoxically.
In fact, generally speaking, most heresies in the first centuries did not arise as rejection of earlier established truth, but more as different (erroneous) understanding/interpretation of the same Faith.
Such is the case of the Christological heresies in particular.
By this token, and proper understanding, a Protestant is someone adhering to only some articles of Faith, thereby rejecting the others.
Just as a "Catholic"(in the PaxVobisian sense)heretic is someone adhering to most of the Faith, but rejecting some parts of it.
In fact, even Karl Rahner in his book defines heresy as such:
"... it is defined heretic someone who, after reception of Baptism, and maintaining the name Christian, obstinately refuses, or doubts, one of the truths of the divine and catholic faith"
The NeoChurch's subjectivistic approach adds yet another requirement, per which one has to
knowingly reject an article of Faith he is
aware is actually correct, in order to be guilty of Heresy.
By this point, Heresy is a virtual impossibility.
I suggest someone opens a thread about this topic, as my knowledge about the topic is very limited.
Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13791 times)