OraProMe Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) What do you think is better when describing non-Catholics. Heretic and schismatic or separated brethren? Smooch up or try to emphasis the gravity of their situation? Justify your answer. Edited October 25, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Bearing in mind that I am not a Church scholar, I think it can depend on the person and situation. For example, with my sister, it wouldn't matter how well I explained the usage of the term "heretic", she'd get angry and then wouldn't listen to anything else. And that would be counterproductive to speaking with her. Of course, I doubt she'd like the term "separated brethren", either. My brother, on the other hand, might bristle at first if I used the term "heretic" but would probably be OK and able to dialogue once I explained the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChildoftheCreator Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Heretic has such a strong connotation. One time I had taped a show off of EWTN that had used to word ¨heretic¨to describe the English people who had decided to become Anglican in the fifteen hundreds, and my dad happened to watch it. He got very upset with the usage of the word, which really surprised me because usually he is more of the intellectual type. I couldn´t explain that heretic just meant someone whose belief went against the teaching of the Catholic Church. But he didn´t get it. Oh well, so to me it would seem like separated brethren would be best, however it does sound a little cheesy. How about ¨people with different faith traditions?¨ Although maybe that doesn´t describe it totally. I´d go with separated and then hope that they understand my explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 It is probably imprudent to use the word [i]heretic[/i] when speaking to a non-Catholic Christian. [i]Separated brethren[/i] is probably the best term in that sort of situation since we do not want to alienate the person to whom we are speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' date='25 October 2009 - 03:00 AM' timestamp='1256454049' post='1991027'] What do you think is better when describing non-Catholics. Heretic and schismatic or separated brethren? Smooch up or try to emphasis the gravity of their situation? Justify your answer. [/quote] Neither the term "heretic" nor the term "schismatic" is applicable to someone who has never been a baptized Catholic. You could call Martin Luther a heretic and a schismatic, but you could not correctly apply the term to a cradle Protestant. We can call heretics, schismatics, and non-Catholics of any stripe "separated brethren." Even the Protestants can use that term concerning Catholics. Whichever faith originally strayed from whichever faith is not the question with the term "separated brethren." Prudence, as always, should guide us in the appropriate use of the terms when trying to reach out to separated brethren. "Heretic" has bad connotations because it should. It might be more prudent to avoid words like that when trying to reach out, and use a set of words to express the same idea, such as "he was a man who separated himself from the established faith." It can cause the non-Catholic to either question what the established faith consisted of, or question whether the heretic separated himself at all, or whether the established religion strayed from [i]its[/i] path. For a non-Catholic, both of these questions are good areas for him to probe into, as long as he does it with a truth-loving heart. ~Sternhauser Edited October 25, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartjp2 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Um...how about "non-Catholic"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 [quote name='iheartjp2' date='25 October 2009 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1256485077' post='1991072'] Um...how about "non-Catholic"? [/quote] This is the debate table. That would make it too easy! ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR-OCDS Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Heretic was a term use to charge a person who was teaching doctrines that were opposed to Catholic teachings. It was also a misused charge in the past centuries, so the term has a negative connotation to it, among non-Catholics. Non-Catholic or separated brethren is the more appropriate term. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' date='25 October 2009 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1256483470' post='1991069'] Neither the term "heretic" nor the term "schismatic" is applicable to someone who has never been a baptized Catholic. You could call Martin Luther a heretic and a schismatic, but you could not correctly apply the term to a cradle Protestant. [/quote] That is incorrect. In order to be a heretic, one only needs to be baptized. It is not necessary for one to have been a Catholic once. Edited October 25, 2009 by Resurrexi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Therese Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 How about non-Catholic kitties? What should we call them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='25 October 2009 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1256488887' post='1991083'] Heretic was a term use to charge a person who was teaching doctrines that were opposed to Catholic teachings.[/quote] This definition is too restricted. A person can be a heretic without teaching anything. In fact, one is a heretic simply by holding opinions contrary to the faith of the Church, i.e., opinions which make it impossible for him to give orthodox worship to the Father, through the Son, in the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='25 October 2009 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1256488887' post='1991083']It was also a misused charge in the past centuries, so the term has a negative connotation to it, among non-Catholics.[/quote] The term "heretic" is simply a word describing a state of affairs in the case of one who has either formally rejected the orthodox faith of the Church, or who materially holds opinions contrary to the one faith through no fault of his own. [quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='25 October 2009 - 10:41 AM' timestamp='1256488887' post='1991083']Non-Catholic or separated brethren is the more appropriate term.[/quote] These more modern terms can be applied to anyone who has been baptized outside the Church, and can be appropriately used in place of or along side the term heretic (material or formal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I recently told a friend of mine (who is not Catholic) "Well, we just tend to call all of you non-Catholic Christians 'Protestant.' There's too many denominations to keep track of!" She laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='25 October 2009 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1256489620' post='1991086'] That is incorrect. In order to be a heretic, one only needs to be baptized. It is not necessary for one to have been a Catholic once. [/quote] I should have said "baptized with a baptism accepted by the Catholic Church." ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Why do we have to call them anything other than what they ask to be called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varg Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 How about "normal people who simply have a different viewpoint to you and are in no way inferior or superior because of their beliefs"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now