Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Dear Father’ - Who’s a heretic or an apostate, and what’s a schism?
St. Louis Review ^ | January 27, 2006 | Father Joseph L. Parisi

Posted on 01/29/2006 3:52:07 PM PST by NYer

I have heard the terms "heresy," "apostasy" and "schism" used in describing people and beliefs not in agreement with our Catholic faith, but I suspect that those terms are often used incorrectly. What are their proper definitions?

The Church distinguishes three specific genres of what it calls the sin of "incredulity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2089).

Heresy is the obstinate denial by someone baptized of a truth which is to be believed with divine and "catholic" faith, or it may be an obstinate doubt about such a truth.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

As one considers these various sins, it is important to consider the fullness of the Church’s moral theology concerning them. Theologians distinguish between "material" and "formal" sins.

A person is in material heresy if it is the result of his upbringing in a particular religious tradition to which he is faithful and he is not responsible for not knowing the revealed truth. A person who willingly professes what he knows to be contrary to revealed truth is a formal heretic, personally guilty of heresy.

These same moral principles apply to the sin of apostasy. Thus, a person would be a material apostate who either leaves the Church or abandons his relationship with Christ Himself. He would only be considered a formal apostate if he willfully and knowingly repudiated Christ Himself or the Church.

Lastly, a person who rejects the supreme authority of the Holy Father over the universal Church is materially a schismatic. Only the person who knowingly and willfully refuses to submit to papal authority or of joining in communion with the Catholic Church subject to him is to be considered a formal schismatic.

In the years between the Council of Trent and Vatican II, it was common to refer to members of Protestant churches simply as heretics without any proper or important distinctions being applied to that judgment.

Today, in the rightful pastoral charity called for by the council fathers of Vatican II, there is a greater sensitivity in our references to our "separated Christian sisters and brothers."

It simply is not appropriate to attribute moral culpability to those who belong to materially heretical or schismatic churches.

Those who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism may be subject to the penalty of excommunication depending upon whether the conditions outlined in the 1983 Revised Code of Canon Law, (numbers 1321-1323 and 1364). If subject to the penalty of excommunication, the person can usually go to confession to have the penalty lifted. Bishops generally delegate their priests or certain particular confessors with this faculty.

If recourse to a higher authority is necessary, the confessor will generally invite the person to return to confession and obtain the remission of the penalty from the bishop and communicate it to the person on his next visit to confession.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: apostate; controlfreaks; heretic; inquisition; pharisees; schism; witchhunt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
Father Parisi is pastor of St. Jude Parish in Overland, MO.
1 posted on 01/29/2006 3:52:10 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...

Oh boy, could we produce a list!


2 posted on 01/29/2006 3:53:07 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Do I dare say that I like the term heretic better than saying "our separated brothers and sisters". I don't say that to be mean but simply to show the significance of their error.


3 posted on 01/29/2006 4:06:07 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (..it takes some pretty serious yodeling to..filibuster from a five star ski resort in the Swiss Alps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"...a person who rejects the supreme authority of the Holy Father over the universal Church is materially a schismatic. Only the person who knowingly and willfully refuses to submit to papal authority or of joining in communion with the Catholic Church subject to him is to be considered a formal schismatic."

That would be me and most of my ping list! :)


4 posted on 01/29/2006 4:14:07 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It simply is not appropriate to attribute moral culpability to those who belong to materially heretical or schismatic churches.

Since this was a single paragraph after a discussion on protestants, are all of us God fearing, bible beleaving, Jesus following Christians who are NOT Catholic to surmise that the Roman Catholic church views us all as members of heretical churchs? i.e. is this sentence inclusive of ALL protestants? i.e. non-Roman catholic, non-Orthodox Christians?

5 posted on 01/29/2006 4:15:27 PM PST by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"...a person who rejects the supreme authority of the Holy Father over the universal Church is materially a schismatic. Only the person who knowingly and willfully refuses to submit to papal authority or of joining in communion with the Catholic Church subject to him is to be considered a formal schismatic."

That would be me and most of my ping list! :)

There was that little thing called the Great Schism...

6 posted on 01/29/2006 4:45:20 PM PST by AlaninSA (It's one nation under God -- brought to you by the Knights of Columbus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Since this was a single paragraph after a discussion on protestants, are all of us God fearing, bible beleaving, Jesus following Christians who are NOT Catholic to surmise that the Roman Catholic church views us all as members of heretical churchs? i.e. is this sentence inclusive of ALL protestants? i.e. non-Roman catholic, non-Orthodox Christians?

I'll be your huckleberry.

Yes.

Think about it - in terms of the Catholic Church. In our view, all other denominations came after the formation of the Catholic church. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbys and Methodists were all born of movements and persons working years after the establishment of the Catholic Church.

The Bible, holidays and many of the beliefs of these various denominations all stem from Catholicism - and the differences of belief all stem from the ideological differences of individuals (Wesley, Calvin, Luther, etc.).

7 posted on 01/29/2006 4:49:03 PM PST by AlaninSA (It's one nation under God -- brought to you by the Knights of Columbus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

" There was that little thing called the Great Schism..."

Ah yes; the great unpleasantness! Well, we seem to all be working through that one. You guys are coming around quite nicely! :)


8 posted on 01/29/2006 5:35:46 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
From article: Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

Like St. Athanasius?

St. Athanasius
Fighter of heresy, falsely accused, ridiculed, condemned, removed from office by heretics and church hierarchy, banished for over ten years, returned, expelled for a second time, continued to fight for the Faith, the entire world against him, "no friends but God and Death...," died, and ultimately declared a Saint.

9 posted on 01/29/2006 5:52:44 PM PST by vox_freedom (Fear no evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
...there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

-- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood" (Ignatius Press)

The supreme irony of all this, is that by validating the good that Protestantism has done, he makes the Tiber seem a bit warmer.

10 posted on 01/29/2006 5:53:03 PM PST by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Since this was a single paragraph after a discussion on protestants, are all of us God fearing, bible beleaving, Jesus following Christians who are NOT Catholic to surmise that the Roman Catholic church views us all as members of heretical churchs? i.e. is this sentence inclusive of ALL protestants? i.e. non-Roman catholic, non-Orthodox Christians?

That's exactly what they teach...And during the middle ages, if you refused to bow to the pope, you were murdered, burned at the stake, babies were killed in front of their mothers, etc...That is not a 'church' I care to belong to...

11 posted on 01/29/2006 6:27:28 PM PST by Iscool (Start your own revolution by voting for the candidates the media (and gov't) tells you cannot win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
That's exactly what they teach...And during the middle ages, if you refused to bow to the pope, you were murdered, burned at the stake, babies were killed in front of their mothers, etc...That is not a 'church' I care to belong to...

You wouldn't happen to have a reference for this remarkable historical nugget would you?

12 posted on 01/29/2006 6:44:29 PM PST by fdcc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
That's exactly what they teach...And during the middle ages, if you refused to bow to the pope, you were murdered, burned at the stake, babies were killed in front of their mothers, etc...That is not a 'church' I care to belong to...

Since Protestants are guilty of this behavior, and more (Queen Elizabeth I, etc...), may we also assume that you would not like to belong to any protestant "church" either??
13 posted on 01/29/2006 7:37:05 PM PST by Zetman (This secret to simple and inexpensive cold fusion intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Those who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism may be subject to the penalty of excommunication depending upon whether the conditions outlined in the 1983 Revised Code of Canon Law, (numbers 1321-1323 and 1364). If subject to the penalty of excommunication, the person can usually go to confession to have the penalty lifted. Bishops generally delegate their priests or certain particular confessors with this faculty.

Can we submit a few names... on second thought, a lot of names.

14 posted on 01/29/2006 7:58:45 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Heresy is the obstinate denial by someone baptized of a truth which is to be believed with divine and "catholic" faith, or it may be an obstinate doubt about such a truth.

Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.

Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

NYer, would you say this is a faily authoritative definition of these terms (from the Catholic view)? I ask because, among some Protestants, I hear the terms thrown around w/o much of a solid definition behind them.

15 posted on 01/29/2006 8:42:33 PM PST by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Being a "schismatic" depends on who is doing the name calling. From the Orthodox point of view, it is the Latin Church who is in "schism".....but you guys seem to be coming around. :) (as my Orthodox Brother stated earlier)


16 posted on 01/29/2006 8:47:46 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rytwyng

Sounds like Parisi needs to track down that Ratzinger fellow and straigten him out. He might have trouble doing that, however, as I understand Ratzinger recently changed his name and moved to another country.


17 posted on 01/29/2006 9:13:33 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

"Think about it - in terms of the Catholic Church. In our view, all other denominations came after the formation of the Catholic church. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbys and Methodists were all born of movements and persons working years after the establishment of the Catholic Church."

This is a false statement. The true church of the Bible which was founded by Jesus and preached by his apostles predates the Catholic church by several hundred years.


18 posted on 01/29/2006 9:25:58 PM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merly an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
"Think about it - in terms of the Catholic Church. In our view, all other denominations came after the formation of the Catholic church. Lutherans, Baptists, Presbys and Methodists were all born of movements and persons working years after the establishment of the Catholic Church."

This is a false statement. The true church of the Bible which was founded by Jesus and preached by his apostles predates the Catholic church by several hundred years.

Amen. The RCC is part of our history, but I too feel that it is more often than not farther from it's true apostolic mission than many other Christian faiths. It is our strongest candidate for centralizing our Christian faith, and I am often at more odds with the anti-Catholics than I am with the Catholics. However, your simple statement is quite true. The true mission of ouf faith is our relationship with God and our membership in His church.

19 posted on 01/29/2006 10:45:52 PM PST by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
Right, there was the Church of Corinth, the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Ephesis, the Church of Hippo, of Thessalonia, of Alexandria, et al. And these remain alongside the Churches of San Antonio, New York, Mexico City, Paris, et al. That is why it was called catholic, or universal. It was Roman because everything was Roman. It was hierarchical because Rome was so, and society remains so today despite democratic theory. Christ remains the Head of the body that is the universal Church; but every organization of men demands a leader. (The ancient Hebrews begged for a king and the Lord provided a king.) The bishopric of Rome, being the seat of St Peter, was acceded this necessary highest office, the power-struggle with the Churches of Jerusalem and others notwithstanding, such struggles being inherent to human nature.

Our Blessed Mother loves obedience. The Lord, providing for us, will make use of all our errors. Keep the Faith of your fathers and mothers, whatever it may be, for civilization depends upon that; but do not despise the RCC for its rightful pastorate.

20 posted on 01/29/2006 11:22:58 PM PST by civis ("Paging Hillaire Belloc!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom

Huh? St. Athanasius was no schismatic.

Please don't besmirch the memory of this great Doctor of the Church.


21 posted on 01/29/2006 11:37:23 PM PST by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

PING


22 posted on 01/29/2006 11:48:07 PM PST by AnimalLover ( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
***Do I dare say that I like the term heretic better than saying "our separated brothers and sisters". ***

I prefer you refer to us in that way as well. I don't want to be accused of being all huggy kissy with ya'll.
23 posted on 01/30/2006 3:20:05 AM PST by Gamecock (..ours is a trivial age, and the church has been deeply affected by this pervasive triviality. JMB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
This is a false statement. The true church of the Bible which was founded by Jesus and preached by his apostles predates the Catholic church by several hundred years.

No. Your statement avoids the core of what I said. The other denominations came well after the establishment of the Catholic Church - regardless of what your position is on Peter as the first Pope.

24 posted on 01/30/2006 3:36:34 AM PST by AlaninSA (It's one nation under God -- brought to you by the Knights of Columbus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
We don't consider your ping list schismatics

You, however....:)

25 posted on 01/30/2006 3:52:25 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn

We Christians teach that only Catholics and Orthodox have/are Churches.


26 posted on 01/30/2006 3:53:41 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

touchy, touchy


27 posted on 01/30/2006 3:55:37 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
That's exactly what they teach...And during the middle ages, if you refused to bow to the pope, you were murdered, burned at the stake, babies were killed in front of their mothers, etc...That is not a 'church' I care to belong to...

Yes, you could just belong to one of the churches that murdered Catholics. Protestant's history is quite dark too, if we want to play this game.
28 posted on 01/30/2006 3:57:32 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Thanks, brother. The appeal to St. Athanasius is intended to soften one for the arguements about you know who


29 posted on 01/30/2006 3:58:01 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA; Kolokotronis
"DOMINUS IESUS"

ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

*As brother Kolo (and others) have noted, we are moving closer together and that, eventual, re-establishemnt of complete unity will be acomplished through the Holy Spirt and will require we Latins to rethink what the Petrine Primacy means and how it is/was both established and exercised back in the day.

30 posted on 01/30/2006 4:07:08 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

Christ' Church was founded on Penticost, AD 30. It has continually existed from that day to this. It was established by the Apostles who were equal in all ways. Peter was never, and never claimed to be, in any way superior to the others. The Catholic church was an offshoot of Jesus' church who advocated a number of things never authorized by the New Testament. The true church never has been and never will be a denomination. It is made up of Christians worldwide who simply follow the Bible and the teachings and examples set by the Apostles and only refer to themselves as Christians.

You are right that the demoninational world sprang from the Catholic church but only because the Catholic had become apostate from the original teachings of the New Testament.


31 posted on 01/30/2006 4:40:37 AM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merly an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
The true church of the Bible which was founded by Jesus and preached by his apostles predates the Catholic church by several hundred years.

How can the true church of the bible, which the Catholic Church assembled, predate Catholicism, when the founding of the Catholic Church is documented in the Acts of the Apostles?

32 posted on 01/30/2006 4:42:02 AM PST by Desdemona (Music Librarian and provider of cucumber sandwiches, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary. Hats required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
Christ' Church was founded on Penticost, AD 30. It has continually existed from that day to this.

Yes. This IS the Catholic Church. It is actually a collection of several sees and due to some nasty things in history, the sees splt apart politically.

33 posted on 01/30/2006 4:45:23 AM PST by Desdemona (Music Librarian and provider of cucumber sandwiches, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary. Hats required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What a terrible thread this is going to be.


34 posted on 01/30/2006 5:10:19 AM PST by countorlock (But thy strong Hours indignant work'd their wills, And beat me down and marr'd and wasted me,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

The church which the Apostles established was not the Roman Catholic Church. Just compare the Roman Catholic church to the church established at Penticost and you will see the difference.


35 posted on 01/30/2006 5:24:52 AM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merly an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

We're going to get a thread here where people who have denied the historical reality of the Church try to play word games with us. Not going to be a nice thread, because these people refuse to accept what the people they are saying were or were not on the dividing line of where the "apostasy" as they see it, actually thought about the church.

Another one of the I'm going to probably ignore threads because I hate historical dishonesty.


36 posted on 01/30/2006 5:32:41 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum
Another one of the I'm going to probably ignore threads because I hate historical dishonesty.

There's something to that.

37 posted on 01/30/2006 5:35:14 AM PST by Desdemona (Music Librarian and provider of cucumber sandwiches, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary. Hats required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer
It sounds like Fr. Parisi is saying:
  1. A man is a formal heretic who willingly professes what he knows to be false.
  2. A man is a formal schismatic who knowingly and willfully refuses to submit to papal authority or to join in communion with the Catholic Church subject to him, presumably knowing who the pope and Church are and what their authority amounts to. (Without the proviso all Orthodox and Protestants would be formal schismatics, and Fr. Parisi doesn't want to say that.)
  3. A man is a formal apostate if he willfully and knowingly repudiated Christ Himself or the Church, again presumably knowing who Christ is and what the Church is.
On these definitions, how many formal heretics, schismatics or apostates could there ever be? And wouldn't most of them be insane, which would remove culpability?
38 posted on 01/30/2006 6:00:32 AM PST by JimKalb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Hi Kolokronis,

First off, I'll admit, I do not know as much about the great schism as I should, but I know the basics. I am Roman Catholic, and greatly admire the Orthodox churches. I really want us to unite, and be one church again.

The Roman Church can be reconciled under obedience to the primacy, but, the thing I am not sure of, is if all of the Orthodox churches, and their patriarchs would be willing to be one church again, if all of our disagreements were reconciled.

Would the patriarchs, and the people, want to be reunited, or is it only a small group of people, including such as yourself?
39 posted on 01/30/2006 6:07:21 AM PST by Theoden (Fidei Defensor - Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
The Roman Church can be reconciled under obedience to the primacy, but, the thing I am not sure of, is if all of the Orthodox churches, and their patriarchs would be willing to be one church again, if all of our disagreements were reconciled.

Perhaps if the Roman church could ponder the reunion as more important than remaining that which the Orthodox would reunion to, perhaps then such a major and beautiful miracle could occur. Can you imagine the Papal chair moving east? Most RCC members can't and I think that is a primary block of any 'shared view' of what being 'one church again' (east/west that is) would mean.

40 posted on 01/30/2006 6:46:20 AM PST by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AgThorn
I know that reunification is a priority for Pope Benedict, and I know that there have been many talks, most of which are going quite well. I view this as a good thing, and I think most Catholics would agree. I don't know how most Orthodox view reunification, especially those in Eastern Europe. Thats what I am curious about.

I would have absolutely no problem with an Eastern pontiff, and I would not mind the Papacy moving east, as long as it is centered in the Hagia Sophia (Spelling?) in Constantinople, as it should be. The Vatican, however, should not, and cannot be disregarded, as it is the utmost importance to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and where so much history of the Church has been centered. I think it can coexist, as the Eastern and Western Empires had in the past.
41 posted on 01/30/2006 7:14:33 AM PST by Theoden (Fidei Defensor - Deus vult!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: civis
The ancient Hebrews begged for a king and the Lord provided a king

...After the Lord specifically warned them NOT to ask -- and that asking for a king would bring great burdens that he wanted to spare them!!!!! They sinned greatly by asking for an earthly king. Go back and read it again.

42 posted on 01/30/2006 8:00:27 AM PST by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

Of course the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece and a few more in what is now Turkey are older than that in Rome, and would rightly argue it was the See of Rome which broke away from the rest of the Christian Church, not visa versa... so just who is the schimatic?

The Bible, catholicity and orthodox beliefs have at least (really more, when you count Jerusalem) as much root in these eastern churches than in Latin Rome.


43 posted on 01/30/2006 8:24:51 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fdcc

The war against the Cathari (Albegesians), very well documented, in Southern France is one. I'm sure one could dig up some baby-slaughtering instances there...but its not necessary. Tens of thousands were slaughtered of this heretical gnostic (by any current measure, Roman, Protestant or Orthodox) religious sect, in this internal crusade/inquisition, instigated and blessed by the Roman church.

John Hus, at the Council of Constance, for another, burned in 1417, for it appears not for theological heresy, but for calling attention to the averice of the Bohemian bishops at the time. This was the same council that settled the 3 simultaneous pope schism (wonder which one really had Peter's blessing?).

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 for another, where as many as 70,000 French Calvinists where slaughtered--primarily for their faith (and I'm sure many were mothers with babies...).

Of course as Protestant princes gained power, Protestant Christians were also guilty of similar horrors...but not under the express command of their respective Church body officials--as was often the case in the early Reformation period with Roman Catholics.

Queen Mary in England in the 1550s, in trying to re-establish Roman Church control in England burned or butchered an estimated 400 Protestant leaders--all for the sake of (and with the blessing of) her church. She wasn't called "Bloody" for nothing.

The religious wars of the the late 1500s and 1600s too, filled rivers of blood on both sides. 1 of 3 Germans for example, was slaughtered in the 30 Years War (whole cities disappearing)...which started and ended for a mixed up mash of both religious and poltical reasons.

Knowing what institutional leaders of the Roman church instigated and blessed (and which the Roman church has never fully repudiated) --especially in Reformation times--I for one could never become a Romanist.

Christ' Church is made up of those that truly follow Him, not in one human organization. He knows His own.


44 posted on 01/30/2006 9:05:35 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
That would be me and most of my ping list! :)

And mine. If/when (by the grace of God) there is a reunion, this may be a huge stumbling block. In the last 50 years or so it has been very popular to side step the issue. But as ecumenical talks progress, eventually it will have to be honestly dealt with.

45 posted on 01/30/2006 9:48:07 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rytwyng; Kolokotronis
Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”

Funny thing that. As I have commented to Kolo a few times, we all tend to drift to the same point in certain areas. That was not always true, at times because of intensely political things.

For instance, prior the fall of Constantinople, there was no theological way that any western ruler could be recognized by the Emperor of the Eastern Romans (Byzantine) as anything else but a rebelling barbarian king. The thought of the time was that if you were truly catholic and orthodox Christian (lower case c and o), then you had to be under the government of the one universal Emperor.

That isn't the case now, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future.

What is also fascinating to me is that in the Asian and African mission fields, there is a lot of cooperation. The Lutheran Church in Seoul has no problem working with the local Catholic diocese. Also (and rather ironically) the Lutheran churches in many parts of Russia haved helped push some wandering Russian Orthodox back to the Orthodox, while trying to convert the truly unchurched. My point is that in parts of the world, some of these debates aren't even on the radar screen of the local Christians. Perhaps when the Church is reunited, it won't be from the West, but from the East!

46 posted on 01/30/2006 9:56:07 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JimKalb
On these definitions, how many formal heretics, schismatics or apostates could there ever be? And wouldn't most of them be insane, which would remove culpability?

Which is the rub. There have been those throughout history who have switched sides for material or political gain. Those who have done so are probably guilty of one of those three you mentioned.

47 posted on 01/30/2006 10:00:03 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Theoden
and I would not mind the Papacy moving east, as long as it is centered in the Hagia Sophia (Spelling?) in Constantinople, as it should be.

The papacy cannot move East unless you move Rome itself, as the Pope is its Bishop. But by all means, get Hagia Sophia back the way it was, minus the Emperor, and I'll be one delighted Latin.

48 posted on 01/30/2006 10:07:04 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Thanks for your defense of St. Athanasius from the charge that could be derived from the definition of schism in the article:

Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the pope or to join in communion with the members of the Catholic Church subject to him.

Glad to see that you disagree with that definition.

49 posted on 01/30/2006 12:26:53 PM PST by vox_freedom (Fear no evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA

Or perhaps you might look at it from the ORTHODOX point of view. You guys split, and then came everybody else......


50 posted on 01/30/2006 1:21:47 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson