Sometimes good, conservative, orthodox (Catholics who liberally accept all the teachings of the Church, thus they are really "liberal") do have a tendency to call others heretics. So just what qualifies one to be a heretic?
I think this definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia is pretty good. What do you think?
Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly "defined" or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.
According to the definition above, what qualifies a person to be labeled a heretic and who can make the accusation? And if accused what should then happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment