Talk:Heresy in the Catholic Church

Where this article came from

This article was created by moving its text out of the Heresy in Christianity article. The length of this section had become so long as to require its own article. Scott P. (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved all three articles. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Catholic teachings on heresy → Heresy in the Catholic Church
• List of movements declared heretical by the Catholic Church → List of heresies in the Catholic Church
• Outline of heresies in the Catholic Church → Outline of heresy in the Catholic Church

– To keep the terminology WP:CONCISE while still trying to observe WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISION. One or more merges could possibly be carried out as proposed elsewhere in the hatnotes into one final article, but that is another discussion. PPEMES (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Feedback

I was brought here by @Veverves request for feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.

1. Under "Definition", the last sentence is somewhat unclear and may need to be revised: However, if the person denied or questioned such a doctrine, but in good faith, that person is not considered a heretic by the Catholic Church, though it is an expression of material heresy. I assume this means that a person can can question or doubt a church teaching, but as long as they do not intend to refuse to believe what is required they are not a "formal heretic"?
2. The above sentence also introduces 2 terms that have not been defined (but presumably are elsewhere in the article if one follows the links): formal heresy and material heresy. It may be better to offer some kind of brief definitions here or else not use these terms at all until they can be fully defined later in the article.

I'll offer more feedback after I finish reading the article. Ltwin (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Continuing . . .

1. Under "History", there isn't any explanation of the church's position on executing heretics nor is there any discussion of the ways that the church cooperated with secular authorities in the punishment of heresy.
2. There is a mention of Luther's condemnation of burning heretics, but the article does not really make clear how this is relevant to Catholic history (were Protestants anti-burning and Catholics pro-burning?)
3. There is also a mention in this section of the last person put to death for heresy, but this skips a lot of history. Why was this the last execution? Did Catholic opinion change? Was the state unwilling to sanction executions?
4. After reading the "Manifest, occult, public, and private heresy" and "Formal and material heresy" sections, it might be a good idea merge these sections into the "Definition" section—which already touches on these terms anyway. Ltwin (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ltwin:

• as for the 'History' section: it do not know what to do. This material dates back from the original copy-paste of the split, from Heresy in Christianity. A 'History' section to explain the History of how the Catholic Church perceived heresies has its place, but the current content is not really good as you have noted.
• I have merged every details into 'Definition and characteristics'.

Veverve (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

See also invincible error

I have twice challenged the bold addition of a see also to Invincible error and twice the challenge has simply been reverted back in. I have also proposed a merger of that page with its main topic of Invincible ignorance, see: Talk:Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology)#Proposed merge of Invincible error into Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology). There is no information on the see also page that is not here or on the invincible ignorance and the only source even to treat the subject is under a more general heading of "error" and the subject lacks notability. I am going to revert it out again. It is just a see also link, but again, per WP:ONUS, challenged material should be discussed before being restored to an article. Please explain what benefit the reader is suposed t oget from this see alos link? Sufficient for taking them off this page to purse that information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The merge is not done, and the concepts are different; not everyone has to agree with you on whether concepts are redundant or not. Veverve (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge or no merge, this link should not be there and you are edit warring, reverting it in again. I ask you to self revert your third revert of this challenged material, and discuss why you think that link is useful here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should be there. The idea that [t]here is no information on the see also page [Invincible error] that is not here or on the invincible ignorance is your own opinion. And the page Invincible error may in the future get more details. In any case, it is a related concept.

I am not reverting. You are the one trying to push your own opinion of a concept and the one who believes the WP article Invincible error is useless. Veverve (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your whole argument revolves around 1) Invincible error and Invincible ignorance (Catholic theology) being the same concept, 2) this WP article Heresy in the Catholic Church covering everything there is to know about invincible error. However, both of those claims are false. Veverve (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No my argument for challenging this inclusion is above, that nothing on that page merits a see also that pulls the reader off this page. Indeed, all the substantive information on that page is about Invincible Ignorance. Moreover that page doesn't have any sources that establish there is even a subject of invincible error. Thus the reader of this page is poorly served by being sent to another page that adds no information.

Again, I have chelleged this inclusion with this argument and you have simply reverted it back in. Per WP:ONUS I am requesting you self revert and establish a consensus for your inclusion before restoring it again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

that nothing on that page merits a see also that pulls the reader off this page. Indeed, all the substantive information on that page is about Invincible Ignorance: yes, this is your own conclusion you try to impose.

If you believe the Invincible ignorance article should not exist, or if you believe said article is not up to Wikipedia's standards, this talk page is not the place to discuss this. If an article displeases you, do not try to remove its hyperlinks from other articles. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You see, it is really not a good idea to reformulate your opponents position before attempting to demolish it. To be clear: I very much think Invincible ignorance should exist as an article, but that is not what we are talking about. Rather the problem here is we are telling people reading this article that there is more information they should view about the subject of invincible error on another page, but when they get to that page, they don't find any more information. It is overlinking, unnecessary and unhelpful to the reader of this article. MOS:OVERLINK states A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. and The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word. As this link does not clarify anything, nor improve the reader's understanding, it is overlinked. Now, the insertion has been challenged. Per WP:ONUS, I again request you self revert until we have a consensus on the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

You asked for comments, so: I think the article, while no doubt improved over what it covers, suffers from the reduction in the "History" section (probably not great in the first place). Heresy has rather steadily declined in internally perceived significance over the history of the church (with an uptick at the Reformation), and is now rarely mentioned. The turbulent history of the main early heresies needs coverage; the church developed as it did largely in resisting these. I don't think the conrast with schism is mentioned, which it should be. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes

@Manannan67: please come discuss your numerous changes here.

• I believe Hylomorphism is a good 'see also', because the distinction between formal and material is either very similar to this concept, or is a direct reuse of said concept.
• Examples of condemned heresies are already given in the 'History' section'. And to state the Catholic Church is the Church of the 4th or 5th century is POV
• The other changes are either removals (which I oppose), or wording changes which do not improve the article

Veverve (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) I do not believe you understand "Hylomorphism", an Aristotelian concept having to do with matter and form, not, as you suppose, formal and material and has nothing at all to do with a discussion of Heresy. If you want to drop it down to the See also section I don't care, but it does not belong in the text proper.

(2) The "Comment" referred to in my edit summary refers to the section directly above captioned "COMMENT", which reads in pertinent part: "I think the article ...suffers from the reduction in the "History" section...The turbulent history of the main early heresies needs coverage; the church developed as it did largely in resisting these." The so-called "examples" of heresies you claim already given in the 'History' section' amount to exactly two and the treatment is, if anything, inept. You deleted sourced content that listed three early heresies. (I could have listed others, but I anticipated that you would delete them as you seem to have a problem with other users contributing to any page you have edited.)

(3) Your objection to the "wording changes" is absurd as you seem to have subsequently adopted them. e.g. "The Catholic Church distinguishes" first taken out, put back 3/11 12:14; reverted 12:15; reinstated 12:16. Perhaps you should slow down until you figure out what you're doing. Manannan67 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) Hylomorphism distinguishes between the matter (potentiality) and the form (what makes things what they are). Similarly, the Catholic Church distinguishes between material heresy (the belief) and formal heresy (the obstinacity, freedom, and information one has, of holding said belief). I believe that it therefore has its place in a 'See also' template in the body of the article.

(2) Indeed, giving a Catholic vision of how the Catholic Church has evolved when confronted with current it deemed heretical, would be a good thing. What is not, is to add currents from the early church, as it implies the Church Fathers and the Early Church were Catholic; and what is also not good is to add a list of heresies from primary sources.

The only secondary source which could have made the job ("The First Council of Nicaea" CE article) is on an Early Church movement. Adding it would be claiming that the Early Church was the Catholic Church. Heresy in Christianity exists for doctrine considered by proto-orthodox of the Early Church as heretical, which by non-POV should not be included in this article.

There is already List of heresies in the Catholic Church to list all the beliefs the Cathlic Church considers as heretical.

Major heresies which are clearly considered as heretical by the Catholic Church (especially Protestantism and how it made the Catholic Church clearly define its biblical canon, ecclesiology, and dogmas; Catharism and the Albigensian Crusade; Conciliarism).

(3) I took inspiration from a few of you changes, yes. I do not blindly revert, I did read all of your changes. Veverve (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"...then made this edit which is completly different from those done previously..." Please cite the specific rule or policy wherein one's edit has to mirror the previous one. ... And stop reverted Sourced content. Manannan67 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC) I can hardly believe that you have the gall to try to draw some attenuated connection between Hylomorphism and Heresy while only recently maintaining there is no connection whatsoever between Invincible ignorance and Invincible Error. Unbelievable! Manannan67 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Manannan67: I know you do not like this page as it is now, and that you do not like my editing style; and you have the right to. Still, to me, your edits are making this article worse, not better.

I reverted you once again; WP:QUO is not your version. Please do not edit-war. I am willing to discuss.

• Heresy means both the belief, and the person's subjective attachment to said belief. The Catholic Church condemns beliefs, and define someone as a heretic based on their subjective attachment to those condemned beliefs.
• Something being sourced does not mean it can be included, WP:ONUS.
• Do not POV-push by using Early Church movements

Veverve (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Pagels, Elaine (1989). "One God, One Bishop: The Politics of Monotheism". The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage. pp. 28–47.; Leclercq, Henri. "The First Council of Nicaea." The Catholic Encyclopedia; Schaff "The Canons Of The CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled At Carthage" -Primary Source? Manannan67 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I did treat each addition separately in my original message.

• Pagels, Elaine (1989). "One God, One Bishop: The Politics of Monotheism". The Gnostic Gospels

-> Not a primary source, but adds a doctine from the Early Church, which implies the Church Fathers and the Early Church were Catholic, which is a POV; and it does not give the Catholic opinion

• Leclercq, Henri. "The First Council of Nicaea." The Catholic Encyclopedia

-> Not a primary source, but is on an Early Church movement. Adding it would be claiming that the Early Church was the Catholic Church

• Schaff "The Canons Of The CCXVII Blessed Fathers Who Assembled At Carthage"

-> indeed a primary source, and once again an Early Church doctrine

- Veverve (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversions

1. It is standard practice to include the page title as the subject of the first sentence. See MOS:FIRST. You reverted this. Why?
2. The first sentence described "Heresy" as defined in the Code of Canon Law (Canon 751). You can't get more authoritative than that. You reverted it. Why?
3. The first paragraph under Definition demonstrated the difference between "heresy", "apostacy", and "schism" per the CCC. This was in response to @Johnbod:'s Comment of March 5 ("I don't think the contrast with schism is mentioned, which it should be.") You reverted it. Why?
4. I trimmed the Aquinas quote where he mentions "Pagans" and "Jews" who are distinguishable from heretics, and would only divert the reader. You reverted it. Why?
5. I removed a sentence tagged unsourced since January. Since you are forever removing both sourced and untagged unsourced material I wonder why?
6. You also reverted the "catholic|wstitle" template. Why?

7. I believe it is you who has the POV. N.B.

Controversies with heretics have been indirectly the cause of many important doctrinal developments and definitions formulated in councils. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared the way for the canon of Scripture; Patripassian, Sabellian, and Arian heresies drew out a clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of Christ.(CE)

This is directly from the CE. Given your fondness for retaining woefully abstruse and outdated material, why revert something that is directly on point? It is widely understood that dealing with a variety of early heresies was fundamental in helping the Church to not only better articulate its beliefs but understand itself as well. I take it then that Irenaeus's Against Heresies does not count in your purview. Your notion that none of this should apply would not find support with any professor of Church History. I shall be reinstating some of these edits where appropriate, along with other amendments as needed. Manannan67 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

When you make such big edits throughout the article, there is bound to be some good things which will be reverted if most of the big edit is bad.

1. MOS:FIRST states: "If the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."
2. Because it is a sparse definition. Hardon's definition is more complete.

Hardon states roughly the same things as this article from the Catholic Diocese of Manchester (by priest Michael Kerper), or Catholic Answers's article; the latter two expand upon the definition of the 1983 CIC to explain it in better details.

Throughout history, the Catholic Church did not brand only attitudes as heretical, but also propositions. The sin or canonical crime of heresy is different from the heretical belief itself; yet both use the same word in Catholicism.

1. I have added those contrasts now, along with another one.
2. A contrast can be useful in a demonstration.
3. I tend to be more lenient if the unsourced information is in the lede of the WP article the sentence is talking about.
4. Because it is not needed, since wherever the Catholic Encyclopedia source is used, it is indicated by an inline reference. The article is not simply a copy-paste from the CE.
5. Again, those are Early Church doctrines I have already talked about in the thread above. Of course the CE is going to present the Early Church as being the Catholic Church.

Veverve (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but if the subject of the article is "Heresy in the Catholic Church" does that not presuppose some attention to what the Catholic Church says about it????????? Manannan67 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC) And I'll thank you not to patronize me.

if the subject of the article is "Heresy in the Catholic Church" does that not presuppose some attention to what the Catholic Church says about it?: if you are talking about specific heresies: yes, but 1) if the source is reliable and neutral (the CE does have a heavy Catholic bias), 2) if the heresy was major in some way, 3) if the heresy is directly related to the Catholic Church (doctrines declared heretical before 1054 should be avoided). Veverve (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no general reason that the heresies before 1054 should be avoided; the Catholic Church still recognizes them as heresies, and it still existed at that time. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And I doubt that any Catholic historian would say that pre-schism heresies are not heresies in the Catholic church. Support inclusion of discussion of earlier heresies, as long as Catholic sources recognise them as heresies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree - and the split with the Eastern Church was a schism. Neither side seriously accused the other of heresy (despite some later rhetoric). Both sides described themselves as "Catholic" both before and after. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Manannan67 please, stay calm and keep WP:COOL. You have once again tried to force your change, and I will have to once again revert you. And I will have to ask for admin intervention also, because you seem to want to edit-war. Veverve (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"doctrines declared heretical before 1054 should be avoided" - there's your POV. I repeat, "The turbulent history of the main early heresies needs coverage; the church developed as it did largely in resisting these." Manannan67 (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC) (FYI: the biblical canon was determined well before the Protestant Reformation, largely by Athanasius of Alexandria.) P.S. "I took inspiration from a few of you changes, yes." Apparently you have no problem with my proposed edits as long as you're the one that implements them.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of these issues, please note that you are both well over WP:3RR here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Dissenting catholic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dissenting catholic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 27 § Dissenting catholic until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 16:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)