'Heretics' -- Different Definition for Catholics and Orthodox versus Protestants?

[HereIStand]

On another thread (now closed), this statement appeared, "Heretics are still Christians." This statement was made by an Orthodox poster. From this statement, it seems that there are those (Protestants?) outside the true Church who are still considered Christian, because they're under the umbrella of Christianity. Within Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical denominations, heretics are considered outside the universal church, and holding beliefs placing them outside of Christianity. Your thoughts?

 

[Jipsah]

On another thread (now closed), this statement appeared, "Heretics are still Christians." This statement was made by an Orthodox poster. From this statement, it seems that there are those (Protestants?) outside the true Church who are still considered Christian, because they're under the umbrella of Christianity. Within Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical denominations, heretics are considered outside the universal church, and holding beliefs placing them outside of Christianity. Your thoughts?

I'd say that orthodoxy is defined by the ancient creeds of the Church. If you agree with the creeds, you're small-o orthodox. If you disagree with the creeds, you're a heretic. Shouldn't matter what sect you belong to.

 

[Darkhorse]

Traditionally, Catholics and Orthodox consider each other closer than Protestants, whom they consider heretics.

At least that's what I remember; don't know if it's still true...

 

[Anto9us]

My thoughts are that 'heretics' are those who have erroneous concepts of the Person, Deity, Nature(s) and Pre-Existence of Christ.

The poster you refer to (who I was never sure was Orthodox or not) quoted some favorite teacher of his that Protestants were heretics -- in the strongest terms.

I googled this 'teacher' -- and it seemed he was very New Agey - Mystical.

This was one for the books!

I, as a Protestant, seem to have been labelled a HERETIC by a NEW AGE MYSTIC!

If that don't BEAT ALL!!

I realize the definition of heresy is not all the same for everybody; I have seen it defined as "any wrong theology" which is way too broad for me.

I was really seeking a definition of what it was that I had been accused of -- from the poster you mentioned who, if he is Orthodox, does not represent any Orthodox thought I have ever encountered-- but as you know, the thread was closed

I think HereIStand that I agree with you that heretics should be seen as outside the church altogether

I wonder what others think heresy MEANS, and also what others who look him up might think of this 'great teacher - Ted Nottingham"

I am not against Orthodox mysticism - my son is Orthodox, I have read a couple of their books on Mysticism - but this Nottingham guy; in my brief research so far, is nowhere close to that, and seems definitely a POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK in painting the entire class of Protestants as heretics

 

[ViaCrucis]

My understanding, based on my own study, which is by no means on the same grounds as the opinions and offerings of actual Catholic and Orthodox Christians on this thread:

In the case of Rome, Vatican II explicitly said that Orthodox and Protestant Christians are not heretics, but are regarded as "separated brethren", i.e. fellow Christians outside of communion with the Catholic Church and the See of Rome.

In the case of Orthodoxy, I suspect it's more complicated; technically if the Orthodox are Orthodox then non-Orthodox are not Orthodox--and thus heterodox by definition. But Orthodoxy does not say that non-Orthodox Christians are not Christians, for example a famous Orthodox saint and theologian, St. Theophan the Recluse specifically said, "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern." To go further, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote, "Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: 'How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!' (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a 'visible' and an 'invisible Church', yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."

I have frequently encountered the Orthodox using the expression, "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where the Church is not."

Part of the issue, I imagine, is how we use the words "heretic" and "heterodox", in some ways these words are synonymous, but personal experience is that many (at least English speakers) tend to make a (at least informal) distinction between heresy and heterodoxy. A heretic is someone who is outside of the historic, mainstream orthodoxy of Christianity (e.g. denies the content of the Creeds); on the other hand something can be heterodox, because it isn't orthodox; but it isn't necessary a rejection of basic Christian teaching. It would, therefore, be possible to be heterodox but not heretical. In other words all heresy is heterodoxy, but not all heterodoxy is heresy. I don't know if this is the sense others have, but my own personal experience has tended to understand these terms in this fashion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Heresy used to be easier to pin down, when the Church was not so fragmented. Even though the matter is not quite so simple in the details, there is a commonality of orthodox doctrine among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. An evidence of this can be found in shared agreement, positive confession concerning the earliest Christian creeds, like the Apostle's Creed for example. Historic studies on heresy reveal that heresy used to be taken very seriously, whereas today heresy is often taken rather lightly even humorously at times. Perhaps the most important doctrine is the doctrine of God. If we get this prime doctrine wrong, we miss the boat almost entirely, perhaps glancing or bumping it in the process of landing in the water outside of it.

 

[Noxot]

as long as no one is torturing or killing me for my beliefs I don't really care

 

[Mountainmike]

It is a complex subject.

The church recognises a difference between formal and material heresy, the difference in essence is knowing that a position opposes that of formal doctrine. Those who knowingly oppose doctrine are considered differently.
A canon clarified by John Paul ii summarises position.

But as Benedict noted the formal theological position viewed by Catholicism of Protestants who live believing what they hold is true, knowing no different, is " undetermined" i.e. The church does not pronounce on it, leaving it to God to decide!

On another thread (now closed), this statement appeared, "Heretics are still Christians." This statement was made by an Orthodox poster. From this statement, it seems that there are those (Protestants?) outside the true Church who are still considered Christian, because they're under the umbrella of Christianity. Within Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical denominations, heretics are considered outside the universal church, and holding beliefs placing them outside of Christianity. Your thoughts?

 

[Anto9us]

Protestants who live believing what they hold is true, knowing no different

Well now wait a minute -- I believe what I hold is true -- but not because I "know no different"

I know what Catholic and Orthodox believe, I affirm much of it, like, we share Nicene Creed; but I CHOOSE TO BE PROTESTANT, and not out of ignorance to what is different in Catholicism and Orthodoxy

 

[Mountainmike]

Well now wait a minute -- I believe what I hold is true -- but not because I "know no different"

I know what Catholic and Orthodox believe, I affirm much of it, like, we share Nicene Creed; but I CHOOSE TO BE PROTESTANT, and not out of ignorance to what is different in Catholicism and Orthodoxy

In which case you are a formal heretic, not material heretic - the distinction Catholicism makes - so knowingly sinning as viewed by Catholicism - so therefore a dangerous path!

I am clarifying definitions, which the OP seemed to be after. I am Not proposing to debate merits of specific cases.

 

[prodromos]

One can only be a heretic if they formed their own belief or followed the teaching of another in opposition to Church teaching and left the Church as a result. There are many Christians who unknowingly follow some heresy or another, but they themselves would not be considered heretics.

 

[Anto9us]

I am no heretic of any kind, Mountainmike.

 

[TuxAme]

In the case of Rome, Vatican II explicitly said that Orthodox and Protestant Christians are not heretics, but are regarded as "separated brethren", i.e. fellow Christians outside of communion with the Catholic Church and the See of Rome.

This isn't really my "area" (if anything, Scripture is), but if (that's a pretty strong if) I remember correctly, Luther is still considered a heretic, while protestants today are considered the "children" of his rebellion. Not heretics, but closer to schismatics (like the Orthodox).

 

[HereIStand]

Well now wait a minute -- I believe what I hold is true -- but not because I "know no different"

I know what Catholic and Orthodox believe, I affirm much of it, like, we share Nicene Creed; but I CHOOSE TO BE PROTESTANT, and not out of ignorance to what is different in Catholicism and Orthodoxy

That's a good point. Thanks.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am no heretic of any kind, Mountainmike.

In your belief no. But the OP queried definition, and by the catholic/ orthodox i.e. Old church definition you are.

The point I make is that heresy viewed by the church does not ( necessarily) make the heretic non Christian, only a sinner.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

This isn't really my "area" (if anything, Scripture is), but if (that's a pretty strong if) I remember correctly, Luther is still considered a heretic, while protestants today are considered the "children" of his rebellion. Not heretics, but closer to schismatics (like the Orthodox).

Since we're dealing with implications, if all Catholics had been patterned after the Augustinian order, Luther would not been considered a heretic. Sadly we cannot go back in history and change what is.

 

[HereIStand]

In which case you are a formal heretic, not material heretic - the distinction Catholicism makes - so knowingly sinning as viewed by Catholicism - so therefore a dangerous path!

I am clarifying definitions, which the OP seemed to be after. I am Not proposing to debate merits of specific cases.

Thank you. I've never heard these terms -- formal and material -- to describe heresy.

 

[Mountainmike]

Since we're dealing with implications, if all Catholics had been patterned after the Augustinian order, Luther would not been considered a heretic. Sadly we cannot go back in history and change what is.

Not so.

Luther was a heretic ( viewed by all Catholicism) since he knowingly opposed the authority and magisterium and tradition of the church, and Augustine would have been just as vociferous in opposition to him.
Indeed - sola scriptura - empowering all to decide their own meaning of scripture by ditching authority and tradition even Luther in later life recognised as having desparate comsequences " there are now as many doctrines as heads"he lamented.

Sola scriptura was the heresy that launched 10000 schisms.

 

[klutedavid]

On another thread (now closed), this statement appeared, "Heretics are still Christians." This statement was made by an Orthodox poster. From this statement, it seems that there are those (Protestants?) outside the true Church who are still considered Christian, because they're under the umbrella of Christianity. Within Protestant Christianity, especially evangelical denominations, heretics are considered outside the universal church, and holding beliefs placing them outside of Christianity. Your thoughts?

Words that are akin to heresy, should give you some idea of who an inquisitor would regard as a heretic.

Dissension, dissent, dissidence, blasphemy, nonconformity, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, freethinking, schism, faction; scepticism, agnosticism, atheism, non-theism, non-belief, unbelief, idolatry, paganism, separatism, sectarianism, revisionism.

They all deny the Christ.

So essentially heresy at it's very core, is the denial of the divine identity and the power of Jesus Christ.

 

[HereIStand]

Words that are akin to heresy, should give you some idea of who an inquisitor would regard as a heretic.

Dissension, dissent, dissidence, blasphemy, nonconformity, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, freethinking, schism, faction; scepticism, agnosticism, atheism, non-theism, non-belief, unbelief, idolatry, paganism, separatism, sectarianism, revisionism.

They all deny the Christ.

So essentially heresy at it's very core, is the denial of the divine identity and the power of Jesus Christ.

Well, yes and no. An atheist wouldn't be a heretic, just a non-Christian, since they're not morphing Christian beliefs into something departing from the Bible or Christian tradition.

 

[dzheremi]

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek word αἵρεσις, meaning "choice", which over time came to take on a negative tone associated with particular schools of thought revolving around chosen opinions advanced by particular leaders of said schools. Thus it has been popular since ancient times that heresies be named after their supposed leaders: Nestorianism after those who followed the teachings of Nestorius, Pelagianism after the followers of Pelagius, Origenism after the followers of Origen, and so forth. The charge against my own communion was sometimes called (and still is in some corners, often heavily represented on the internet among the MOST TRUE ORTHODOX™ EVER, SEVEN COUNCIL CRUCIBLE ANTI-ECUMENIST type of Chalcedonian ) Eutychianism, after Eutyches, a presbyter and archimandrite at Constantinople who advanced a confused and heretical Christology that claimed that Christ's divinity in some sense 'consumed' his humanity "like a drop of vinegar in the ocean" (as the quote goes), as that is what the believers in the dyophysitism as expressed in the Tome of Leo took us to believe in instead of their own chosen opinion. In return, in addition to believing the Chalcedonians to be heretics and crypto-Nestorians, the term "Melkite" -- now used in a self-identifying, value neutral sense by Arabized Greek Catholics of the Levant -- was originally coined as a pejorative in the Syriac language by opponents to Chalcedon who saw their Syriac bretheren who accepted the council as having turned their backs on Orthodoxy in favor of following the imperial church and court into heterodoxy (from Syr. ܡܠܟܝܐ malkoyo 'royal, imperial').

But obviously Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and most Protestants are still Christians. They still adhere to the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, and also to the theology and Christology embraced at Ephesus (i.e., the anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius; that St. Mary is Theotokos). The more fine-grained question is which one of these can plausibly claim to the be the Church to the exclusion of the others, but that's not usually a question that either interests or includes Protestants, as the idea of strict ecclesiology has very much fallen by the wayside for basically every group other than Catholics and Orthodox. (And it's only more fine-grained because various dematerialized ideas about communion have so long gone unchecked, largely in the Protestant/Catholic/Western Christian world, precisely due to the unpopularity of the idea of strict ecclesiology, so you'll get plenty of people who will agree that Christ is God -- thankfully! -- but then somehow balk at the idea that He established one Church, not 3, or 20, or 500.)

Long story short: A heretic is usually* still a Christian, though who is a heretic and who is not will depend on who you ask.

(* Important note: some writers of considerable antiquity, such as St. Augustine, use the word heretical/heresy to describe groups and philosophies that never claimed to be Christian and did not originate from within the Christian Church, such as Manichaeism.)