Why does heresy no longer occur as a formal charge?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A shift occurred, but unfortunately,on the negative side, many individuals claimed Vatican II said this or that when it said nothing of the kind. They pushed the "spirit" of Vatican II. Those people used Vatican II to bring the Church more in line with the culture changes that were taking place in the 1960s. The universities convinced the Church that, for example, the local bishop need not be on the board of directors. Now many of those universities cannot be recognized as Catholic. The nuns that taught at Catholic schools modified their habits, and some eventually didn't wear habits at all which I think was not a good thing. They quit teaching the Catechism in Catholic schools, instead for religion they discussed typical social problems that kids might have. Guitar masses became popular. The popes position seemed weakened, although Vatican II essentially stated bishops had no decision powers without the approval of the pope. The biggest negative was the loss of the teaching of the faith, and how important a prayer life is. I enjoy guitar masses, but I think some parishes slipped because of the lack of holiness with music that wasn't reverent. The awe of the Real Presence of Jesus and the holiness of the mass is what the Catholic Church offers that Protestants don't. Without knowledge of the faith and poor pray lives people fell away and continued to fall away. On a positive note, taking out the Latin in the liturgy made the mass more understandable for a lot more people. Too many priests rattled off a poor quality of Latin. There were good changes in the liturgy, but some say things went to far. For example, the greeting of other people before communion seems out of place. The dialogues with other religions were a great step.

In my experience, this explains why so many Catholics, including a generation older than I knew/know so little about their faith. While taught in our parochial schools, The Confessional Lutheran Churches have retained the teaching of our Catechism outside of the schools.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

In the recent thread on heretics a common claim was something like, "Christian churches used to charge people with heresy and impose penalties, but they don't anymore." I think this is factually accurate, but I want to raise the question of why heresy no longer has much of a function within Christian churches. Why are formal charges of heresy "old hat," and relatively uncommon in our day and age?*

For example, from what I can find, the last two times the Catholic Church charged anyone with heresy were 2004 and 1997 (link - Reidy was eventually convicted).

(Although this thread is about charging heretics with heresy, I will still link to my thread on propositional heresy, which is related. ViaCrucis' post on heresy is also useful.)

Spoiler: Disputing the premise

Those who wish to argue that heresy is still alive and well, and is no less common today than it was in centuries past, are of course welcome to argue their position.

* A formal charge of heresy is a charge of heresy leveled by a church authority in their official capacity.

There is still a mechanism in place for this in our tradition. It is interesting to note in our Confessions the term used for heresy is "Controversy".

Our Church's response to unrepented controversies or sin(s) remains excommunication. Public declarations of excommunication are not unknown, even today. Unfortunately, not all Pastors respect or are willing to enforce rulings made by their sister Congregations and even District and Synod level rulings. This is one of the major issues I have with Congregationalism; Bishops are often looked upon as "advisory" especially when one disagrees with them or the synod.

 

[o_mlly]

Could Vatican II in the 1960s have played a role in reducing heresy charges?

Archbishop Sheen thinks so. The conversation between Sheen and Buckley on this issue begins at 35 minutes into the interview.

 

[AlexB23]

Archbishop Sheen thinks so. The conversation between Sheen and Buckley on this issue begins at 35 minutes into the interview.

Interesting, but I do not have time for an hour interview.

 

[o_mlly]

Interesting, but I do not have time for an hour interview.

If you followed the post and started at 35 minutes in, you would see that the interview on the issue at hand is 3.5 minutes.

Do you think a problem with young people who claim to be Catholic is that they don't have time to learn about our faith but will spend hours watching reruns of "Star _____"? (You could fill in the blank.)

 

[AlexB23]

If you followed the post and started at 35 minutes in, you would see that the interview on the issue at hand is 3.5 minutes.

Do you think a problem with young people who claim to be Catholic is that they don't have time to learn about our faith but will spend hours watching reruns of "Star _____"? (You could fill in the blank.)

Young people enjoy our entertainment, such as Star Trek. I do make devotionals though.

 

[The Liturgist]

On a positive note, taking out the Latin in the liturgy made the mass more understandable for a lot more people. Too many priests rattled off a poor quality of Latin. There were good changes in the liturgy, but some say things went to far.

It contradicted Sacrosanctum Concilium, which specifically stated that Latin was to remain the primary liturgical language. And there is such a thing as a Novus Ordo mass said in Latin, but unfortunately it is quite rare. Also I would note that most of what priests say in Latin is silent or in a low voice, so the poor quality of the Latin known by priests is frankly irrelevant - i would also note that before Vatican II a fairly large number of RC clergy actually knew ecclesiastical Latin and could communicate (indeed boys who attended good preparatory schools and private schools up through the 1960s learned Latin and Greek).

What does matter is that traditional Latin masses by the dioceses, Oratorians, FSSP, ICKSP etc are consistently getting better attendance, particularly among families with young children. And the Scripture lessons and homilies are given in English.

 

[zippy2006]

There is still a mechanism in place for this in our tradition. It is interesting to note in our Confessions the term used for heresy is "Controversy".

Our Church's response to unrepented controversies or sin(s) remains excommunication.

Interesting. Is this primarily doctrinal or something else? For example, would the perpetrator be required to recant a teaching, or would they be required to repent of a controversy or scandal that they caused? Or both?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If you followed the post and started at 35 minutes in, you would see that the interview on the issue at hand is 3.5 minutes.

Do you think a problem with young people who claim to be Catholic is that they don't have time to learn about our faith but will spend hours watching reruns of "Star _____"? (You could fill in the blank.)

Or Sports-ball/video games of one type or another.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip> On a positive note, taking out the Latin in the liturgy made the mass more understandable for a lot more people. Too many priests rattled off a poor quality of Latin. <ship>

Not a positive note; I belie I can speak to this first hand.... Here in Canada in the Province of Quebec which has been traditionally bilingual (English and French, when the Mass was in Latin both language groups attended Mass together. When it was abolished, it forced the Church to duplicate the services provided now having two services instead of one and building multiple new mono/bi-lingual parishes; further diluting the resources of the Church.

In 1771 the French finally surrendered to Britain in Lower Canada with a hastily drafted and ill conceived (my opinion) treaty of Paris which granted the now Province of Quebec the retention of their legal system (Code of Napoleon vs British Common Law resulting in a french society with a separatist independent attitude.

Back to Vatican II: English and French no longer shared much socially; the visit of President Charles De Gaulle stirred up a spirit of revolution that ultimately ended up with what is now known as the October Crisis came close to sending Canada into civil war in 1970. I was 10 years old in South Western Ontario and I remember the assignations and terrorist acts and our Government implementing Martial Law in Quebec under the "War Measures Act".

While Vatican II was not the root cause, it was a contributing factor in the right place at the right time that contributed to something that might have been avoided if both factions continued to speak.

The legacy today is a federal political party called "The Bloc Quebecois" which exists only in quebec, and who's mandate is separate from Canada.

So, we are discussing formal Charges of Heresy; here in Canada we can no longer recognize what British Common Law calles "High Treason".

Maybe the root cause is the ubiquitous notion of "inclusivity" that has infected every aspect of society.

Sorry, I digressed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting. Is this primarily doctrinal or something else? For example, would the perpetrator be required to recant a teaching, or would they be required to repent of a controversy or scandal that they caused? Or both?

There are mechanisms in place for both.

 

[Bob Crowley]

While Vatican II was not the root cause, it was a contributing factor in the right place at the right time that contributed to something that might have been avoided if both factions continued to speak.

I don't think the Church can be held responsible for "accidents of history". I suspect de Gaulle's visit would have inflamed tensions even if the Latin mass has still been operating. In any case not every citizen of Quebec, French or English, would have been Catholic or attending a Catholic Church.

I can vaguely remember the news about the tensions in Quebec here in Australia. I'd have been 15 or so at the time.

We don't seem to hear much about French-English tensions in Quebec these days. I assume it's quietened down somewhat?

 

[Valletta]

Not a positive note; I belie I can speak to this first hand.... Here in Canada in the Province of Quebec which has been traditionally bilingual (English and French, when the Mass was in Latin both language groups attended Mass together. When it was abolished, it forced the Church to duplicate the services provided now having two services instead of one and building multiple new mono/bi-lingual parishes; further diluting the resources of the Church.

In the United States there were many cultures and languages and churches with services in different languages were built almost next to each other. It's unfortunate for efficiency sake when there are different languages, at my old parish the bulletin is in English and Spanish and there is a Sunday mass in Spanish. The point of the Vatican II change was to have an understandable mass for the most number of people. Let me reiterate that I am absolutely for having enough Latin masses to accommodate those who want Latin masses.

 

[zippy2006]

Not a positive note; I belie I can speak to this first hand.... Here in Canada in the Province of Quebec which has been traditionally bilingual (English and French, when the Mass was in Latin both language groups attended Mass together. When it was abolished, it forced the Church to duplicate the services provided now having two services instead of one and building multiple new mono/bi-lingual parishes; further diluting the resources of the Church.

On a similar note, N. T. Wright argues that the Protestant vernacularization of Christianity led to the splitting of Christianity along ethnic and national lines.

So, we are discussing formal Charges of Heresy; here in Canada we can no longer recognize what British Common Law calles "High Treason".

I was thinking of this parallel as well, especially in relation to an earlier poster who sees heresy and the secular order as entirely separate concerns. Treason and heresy have suffered the same fate.

 

[Valletta]

I don't think the Church can be held responsible for "accidents of history". I suspect de Gaulle's visit would have inflamed tensions even if the Latin mass has still been operating. In any case not every citizen of Quebec, French or English, would have been Catholic or attending a Catholic Church.

I can vaguely remember the news about the tensions in Quebec here in Australia. I'd have been 15 or so at the time.

We don't seem to hear much about French-English tensions in Quebec these days. I assume it's quietened down somewhat?

The vast majority of those in Quebec spoke French last time I was there unless immigration has had some impact. So I think the tensions were more Quebec against the rest of Canada. A black suit, white shirt, and tie was pretty standard for mass attendance.

 

[The Liturgist]

On a similar note, N. T. Wright argues that the Protestant vernacularization of Christianity led to the splitting of Christianity along ethnic and national lines.

Unfortunately, he’s mistaken. The first such divisions resulted from the activities of the crypto-Nestorian Ibas in the fifth century, who caused the Oriental Orthodox to be falsley accused of Monophysitism, and the Oriental Orthodox tended to consist mainly of Coptic and Syriac speaking Christians who felt oppressed by the Greek-speaking “Melkites” loyal to Emperor Justinian, after Justinian switched from a policy of reconciliation to violent persecution, as well as members of the Armenian, Numidian and Ethiopian churches which existed outside of the Eastern Roman Empire altogether, while the Church of the East, which existed primarily to the East of the Byzantine Empire, although also to the south, in places like Socotra in Yemen, and the Malabar Coast in India, but also on the Silk Road and in Mongolia, Manchuria and Tibet, with its homeland being Mesopotamia in the Persian Empire, specifically the Catholicos lived in Seleucia-Cstesiphon, was briefly under the control of Nestorian bishops in the fifth century, before a Chalcedonian Christology was adopted under Mar Babai the Great, but unfortunately traces of Nestorian influence were never removed from their liturgy.

Furthermore, the Great Schism eventually resulted in the separation of Greek Christians and Latin Christians for a few hundred years, until Eastern Rite Catholic and Western Rite Orthodox churches appeared and began to reverse this separation.

Whoops, I failed to properly read the post of my friend @zippy2006 and thus wrote all of that nonsense superfluously.

 

[zippy2006]

Unfortunately, he’s mistaken.

You seem to think that his thesis requires that there were no ethnic divides in Christianity prior to the Reformation, but that simply isn't true.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The vast majority of those in Quebec spoke French last time I was there unless immigration has had some impact. So I think the tensions were more Quebec against the rest of Canada. A black suit, white shirt, and tie was pretty standard for mass attendance.

That would depend on where you are in Quebec; I can take you to areas of Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia where there is only french spoken, yet these are english speaking provinces.

Be mindful that there was also a mass exodus of english speaking people after the October crisis. Likewise, Montreal was the banking center of Canada; all the banks, trust companies and insurance companies packed up and left; same goes for government offices. Taxation and firearms licensing was moved to New Brunswick.

Be mindful also that Christianity including the Catholic Church is all but dead in Quebec. Not as woke as some other provinces, but far more secular.

 

[The Liturgist]

You seem to think that his thesis requires that there were no ethnic divides in Christianity prior to the Reformation, but that simply isn't true.

Oh I see what you’re saying. Fair enough. I misread your post as stating that he has said that the ethnic division had originated in the Reformation, which is obviously not the case, and I was frankly surprised NT Wright would have asserted such an obvious error given his reputation, but nope, it was me failing to correctly parse your post, so my apologies for that tangent.