A Blue-Collar Catholic Can Recognize a White-Collar Heretic
Most American Catholics do not know the definition of a heretic. However, a smaller percentage of mainstream Catholics who have studied a little theology might know that Catholics used to call Protestants “heretics,” whereas they now prefer the term “separated brethren.” An even smaller percentage of Catholics, namely traditionalists, still prefer to label Protestants as “heretics” (as well they should.) However, most traditional Catholics today are hesitant to grant the moniker “heretic” to anyone in the clergy without a formal canonical trial. Why are they so free with the first group and hesitant with the second group?
They are afraid that an obvious heretic in the hierarchy as such undermines the indefectibility of the Church. (The indefectibility of the Catholic Church is her invincibility against any error of faith or morals, that the gates of hell will not prevail against her, and I very much believe in it.) However, many traditionalists today have a false understanding of the Catholic Church if they erroneously believe the Church’s indefectibility depends on modernist heretics. (One need only study the Arian crisis a little bit to see that not every bishop in pretty vestments is a Catholic. In fact, the Catholic Church eventually ruled all the Arian bishops to be non-Catholics even if they had valid sacraments at the time.)
But back to the topic that everyone is debating online today: Can an average lay Catholic recognize and reject a heretic in the alleged-hierarchy? I happily admit there are longer (and superior) articles to this one to show that any blue-collar Catholic can recognize a material public heretic (even if he be a member of the clergy) including Matthew McCusker writing here and Mark NVP quoting a Pope here and a longer article sourced from Fr. Paul Kramer here.
But today I’m going to give a shorter and Scriptural proof as to why you can recognize a heretic in the hierarchy without need of anyone in authority confirming it for you. In other words, a well-formed blue-collar Catholic can recognize any white-cassock heretic (er, I mean “collar”) even before the latter undergo a formal canonical trial or that mythical “imperfect Council.”
A few weeks ago in the old Divine Office, every priest had to read the second letter of St. John the Apostle. Although we read it in Latin in our ancient Roman Breviary, I will include the verses that stopped me in my tracks in English from two translations of the same chapter:
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.—2 John 1:9-11 (ESV.)
or the same verses in an older translation with some original manuscript variations:
Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, “God speed you,” communicateth with his wicked works.—2 John 1:9-11 (DRB.)
Whichever translation you choose above, we know that the above verses were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit by St. John the Apostle as he exhorted a laywoman and her children on how to keep the faith pure. (See 2 John 1:1 if you doubt this.) Think about it for a minute: One of the first Apostles instructed a laywoman with no formal training in the First Century that she had the ability (and duty!) to recognize and reject (not resist!) anyone who came to her who did not remain in the doctrine of Christ (non manet in doctrina Christi—v.8.)
But wait! Was she supposed to wring her hands and complain that she was not trained in theology first? Was she supposed to show false-humility and say she couldn’t recognize a crafty goon not maintaining Apostolic doctrine (hanc doctrinam non adfert—v.10) until she receive approval from a bishop? Or perhaps she was courageous enough to recognize such a heretic, but then this new believer in Ephesus was supposed to text (on her mythical ancient cell-phone) St. Peter to make sure someone in Rome agreed with her appraisal of the bad man as a heretic?
Of course, all these propositions are ludicrous. St. John truly believed a blue-collar Catholic—even a new convert—could recognize a heretic straight-away. That woman did not have to wait for a bishop (like St. John) to confirm her smell-test. She didn’t even need to write her Apostle friend to confirm her well-informed intellect. The Apostle expected her to avoid anyone who didn’t hold to Apostolic Catholicism. Why? Because real Catholicism is simple, not complex. In the first century, she didn’t have the luxury to wait for a Cardinal in red to identify a wicked man on her doorstep as a material public heretic. In fact, her salvation depended on common-sense, not canon law.
St. John finished his letter to the lay woman with a pretty terrifying warning: Any minor interaction of that laywoman with a heretic meant she was “cooperating in his evil works” (communicat operibus illius malignis—v. 11.) This would be true for blue-collar trads today who do damage control for a certain white-collar heretic, even if they proceed with soft words to “give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile.” Such Catholics think they are taking the safe route of salvation because they walk the pathway of ostensible-obedience. However, they are actually on the most dangerous road in obeying imposters and heretics. Just look at the evidence before you accuse me of calling names.
Of course, St. John the Beloved would be the first to admit our judgment as Christians will primarily be the extent to which we lived with supernatural charity. But charity cannot exist without faith. And faith cannot exist while one follows a heretic, even if one thinks him to be in the hierarchy. This is why a blue-collar Catholic can and must recognize and reject (not resist) a white-collar heretic and avoid him before being tempted to enter into any canonical games. It’s common sense. It’s Biblical. It’s clear in Church history.
St Paul had between 40 and 47 years earlier already addressed “the churches in Galatia” with the following, right at the beginning of his letter to them (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition):
1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,
2 And all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia.
3 Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
Note that the addressees are “the churches in Galatia”. Most commentators agree that this letter would have been read out to all members at the various churches in Galatia at the time of writing.
Note that St Paul inherently acknowledged the possibility that even he himself, or one of his fellow apostles or missionaries to the Galatians (St Barnabas), or even an angel might “pervert the gospel of Christ” and “preach a gospel to you [Galatians] besides that which we [St Paul and St Barnabas] have preached to you [Galatians]”.
Note the Church’s first written anathema – repeated for clarity, emphasis and the avoidance of doubt – in verses 8 and 9.
Note that verses 8 and 9 are not specifically addressed to the bishop / overseer / episkopos, nor to the priests / presbuteroi, nor to the deacons / diakonoi, but simply to “the churches in Galatia”.
One criticism that might be levelled at this plain reading of Holy Scripture is that the specific problem St Paul was addressing was that of “Judaisers” attempting to enforce stricter initiation and membership criteria on new Gentile believers in and followers of “the Way” of Jesus Christ – or Christians as we are now called. I am no Biblical Greek scholar, but I do not see any language or context in the English translation that limits the scope of the anathemas to this specific problem only.
“I am no Biblical Greek scholar, but I do not see any language or context in the English translation that limits the scope of the anathemas to this specific problem only.”
Paul, one of the heresies that Scott Hahn, Brant Pitre, Taylor Marshall, and other Protestant preachers have spread anew is that Greek is the official language to use to interpret the New Testament. It is not. It is the Latin that the Church uses to officially interpret Scripture passages. Despite what these modernist Franciscan University, Inc., preachers teach, it is the Latin of Saint Jerome that is to be used. A Catholic does not need to learn Greek at all, but every Catholic should be proficient in Latin.
Shared this post with a friend and this is her response:
” Any Catholic can identify heretical teachings that has been solemnly declared by the Church. These solemnly declared heresies were brought to the attention of the Pope to settle the issue before the anathemas and if any, excommunication.
St.Thomas wrote that when there is a controversy, the laity’s default is to hold on to the teaching or practice that was in place before the controversy arose and wait until the Church resolves it.
The usually format for a heretical teaching is “If anyone says that….let him be anathema.”
For a person to be declared a heretic, an Ecclesiastical Tribunal is needed. Up until then, the person is simply formally charged as a suspect. The Office of the Inquisitor was centralized in Rome to bring uniformity in the process and to prevent the worst abuses.
This process included opportunities for the suspect to reformulate, to reword, to recant, etc. his writings and thoughts.
The goal of the Tribunal was not to declare, but to discover first and then to declare this person a heretic.
I’m the meantime, there is a lot of back and forth between the Office of the Inquisition and the suspect with varying judgements rendered some are short of the penalty of excommunication.
Martin Luther was given many opportunities to recant. His stubbornness was the cause of the declaration of excommunication.
I disagree with Father. It is not our place in the Church to point to a person and call him a “heretic”. Do lay people have the power and authority to bring a “suspected heretic” to trial and later, declare him excommunicated from the Church?
No, our job is to point and to form a judgement on the teaching. And if in doubt, fall back on the teaching and practices before the controversies arose.
This is something that any Blue Collar worker can accomplish. “
I guess your friend missed the quote from St. John that was the central point of the essay. QED
Dear Mark, I recently found out about the SSPV. They seem to be the only ones who have followed this teaching and rejected the heretics and held fast to the teachings of the church before Vatican 2 without compromise. What is your opinion of them? They have a YouTube channel called What Catholics Believe that I have found to be very good.
Her Reply:
He is confusing his categories- teaching heresy with being a heretic.
The first can be discerned by a layman, the second requires a Tribunal.
Yes, a layman does not need a Bishop’s permission to reject a heretical position.
Under the Arian crisis, Catholics were advised, if possible, to move to be under a Bishop who is orthodox and if not possible, stick with Tradition.
And the Arian Crisis was resolved through an ecumenical Counsel.
But to point one’s finger to false teaching to say” Heresy” in not the same as pointing to a person to call him a Heretic.
It’s within our competency to judge a heresy, but not within our competency to judge a person as a Heretic.
In conclusion, both Scripture and Tradition are needed to think like a Catholic. Using Scripture alone is thinking like a Protestant.
1917 c2316 “Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy…is suspected of heresy.”