Author Topic: Heretics? (Read 3797 times)

Binechi · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2014, 07:47:59 PM »

Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.

Does the Church declare (in normal times), this person "Guilty", until proven "Innocent" ?

Can this person be refused Holy Communion until the final declaration ?

Does any group in these troubled times have the authority to refuse a person who they determine to be , "Suspect"

For the scholars ,, lets see how you do on these vital questions ....

A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”

MyrnaM · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2014, 08:13:36 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

In a certain sense, yes; one must be Catholic first to be a heretic because part of the definition of a heretic is one who claims the name of Christian (which really and ontologically means Catholic) and dissents from a truth of the Christian faith. Jews, Buddhists, atheists etc. can't really be called heretics.

Is is correct to call the above infidels?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2014, 08:17:05 AM »

Quote from: Director

A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”

Is it correct then, in your opinion, to identify anyone who fits the definition above a heretic then? Especially when they have the written word to explain Church teaching at their finger tips.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2014, 08:30:53 AM »

Quote from: Director

Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.

Does the Church declare (in normal times), this person "Guilty", until proven "Innocent" ?

Can this person be refused Holy Communion until the final declaration ?

Does any group in these troubled times have the authority to refuse a person who they determine to be , "Suspect"

For the scholars ,, lets see how you do on these vital questions ....

A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”

"Suspect of Heresy" is a canonical term and it doesn't mean what you'd think. It usually refers to those who aid heretics in some way or another, but do not express heresy themselves. They may publish their books or support them in some other way, but their own writings and actions are not heretical.

Kind of in a rush now, but later I'll post some sources-- if memory serves, once the fact of a crime is established, the offender is presumed guilty and is given a chance to prove himself otherwise.

As to the refusal of Holy Communion, in these times I don't see how it could be licit unless the person was quite obviously a public sinner, or had incurred excommunication beyond any doubt. Obvious examples would be Nancy Peℓσѕι, Joe Biden, et al.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2014, 11:12:18 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Kind of in a rush now, but later I'll post some sources-- if memory serves, once the fact of a crime is established, the offender is presumed guilty and is given a chance to prove himself otherwise.

I believe you're referring to Canon 2200 §2 of the Pio-Benedictine Code, which states:

Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.

In English, this reads:

When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice is presumed until the contrary is proved.

In this case, the use of malice, which itself descends from malitia, as it occurs in English commentaries on the code is a somewhat troublesome selection to replace dolus, which is defined not as a character of transgression marking it with purpose of deliberate injury but rather conscious understanding that an act in question was contrary to established law.