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.
Huh? St. Athanasius was no schismatic.
Please don't besmirch the memory of this great Doctor of the Church.
PING
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.
You, however....:)
We Christians teach that only Catholics and Orthodox have/are Churches.
touchy, touchy
Thanks, brother. The appeal to St. Athanasius is intended to soften one for the arguements about you know who
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.
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.
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?
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.
What a terrible thread this is going to be.
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.
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.
There's something to that.
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.
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.