Emotionally Loaded Words

[scardella]

Hey, I was talking the other day (among Catholics), and I mentioned that Protestants were, by definition, heretics and schismatics. I added that what gives me hope was that they were ignorant of that fact (because to be willfully in error is quite problematic). Well, the reaction I got was sort of disbelief, dumbfoundedness. It was as if I had said that murdering babies for sport was a good pastime.

Yeah, "heretic" is a loaded word, but it's correct, I believe. Was I saying it in a condemning way? Nope. Did I accuse anyone, personally, of being a heretic? no. Was it a faux pas? Probably, considering it's emotionally loaded.

I suppose my question is multipart:
How does one lovingly tell someone they are wrong? Should one tell another directly? hint at it? Should one use emotionally loaded language if it is, in fact, correct? How to keep a level-headed dialogue on issues that are emotionally sensitive?

God bless 70x7 times,
Ciao,

SCardella

[Theoketos]

First part is earning enough respect so that the person gives you right to speak and be heard.

[scardella]

btw, I didn't mean it to be topic-specific. I can think of many issues where this is important: abortion, stem-cell research, homosexuality, etc.

God bless 70x7 times,
Ciao,

SCardella

[phatcatholic]

i think its important to let them know that they aren't "heretics" in the same way that Martin Luther is a "heretic." luther is a "formal heretic"--a catholic who denies some article of the faith. our protetant friends are "material heretics"--they hold the beliefs of the original formal heretic and they associate themsevles with communions that have spawned from this original, formal heresy.

a group is schizmtic when it breaks unity w/ the Church to form its own group. of course, to break away, you have to originally be a member (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.). however, many protestant denominations today don't even have their source in the Church and are actually quite proud of it. so, i'm not sure if they and their members can be labeled schizmatic. it is my understanding that they would not be, but i am open to correction on this point.

at any rate, its important to let people know that, just b/c the Church views you as a heretic or part of a schizmatic communion, that does not mean we condemn you to hell. as you said, ignorance plays a part in culpability. also, catholics believe that until you breathe your last breath you have an opportunity to become one w/ the Church. alot of times, people naturally associate the words "heretic", "schizmatic", and "excommunicate" with "condemned to hell"........but that is not necessarily the case.

finally, i tend to avoid using the words. like you said, they are "loaded" and i think there are other better ways to get the point across w/o using them. also, if you use these words you invariably end up having to spend time explaining what they mean, and i think this just takes away from whatever topic you are discussing. don't ever give ur opponent the opportunity to take the discussion off topic by arguing over semantics. the more precise you can be the better.

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[argent_paladin]

[quote]2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."[/quote]

I would say that those not in communion with Rome are schismatics. And you are also correct about your definition of heresy.

I have found that most Protestants aren't offended if they are called heretics or schismatics by a Catholic. For some, it is a badge of honor. It shouldn't be surprising or shocking to them.

I do think that it is significant that it is Catholics who were shocked by you. They tend not to like those words, preferring vague ecumenical terms. But most evangelicals or Baptists are just fine with being considered separated from Rome, or denying what Rome considers true.

[p0lar_bear]

Just a fun little side note....

Did you know that Leo XIII was the first modern pope to refer to Protestants and Eastern Christians as "separated Christians" rather than heretics or schismatics?


While it would be technically correct to call Protestants material heretics and the Orthodox schismatics, the pejorative connotations connected to those words (particularly in reference to these groups) make their use counter-productive in dialogue. They know they are separate from the Church; they know they do not believe the same things.

I think where the terms are more useful is with people who are heretical or schismatic but still believe (or pretend) they are in full communion with the Church. For example, (and I'm going to get shot by someone for this one...) I think it would be more appropriate (or useful) to say that the SSPX is in schism than the Greek Orthodox, simply because some people don't know or recognize the fact that the SSPX is not in union with the Church, while no one really thinks that the Greek Orthodox are.

[phatcatholic]

good point polar_bear........glad to have you back

[cmotherofpirl]

Good point Polar, and you have been missed.