Hi,

Is it a sin to accuse people who we think might be heretics, of being heretics if lets say for example that they're protestant who accepts the trinity but not papal authority then they're still a heretic right?

I have a little bit of knowledge about material vs formal heresy but not that well schooled on it.

It's not a very helpful way to have a discussion with someone. "Heretic" tends to end a discussion rather than to help it progress.

As one of my former pastors (may he RIP) might say, it would generate "more heat than light".

For you? Never, the judgment of who is, and is not, deserving of the label 'heretic' is reserved to the Church. The best you can say is that a particular view which someone has propounded might be a heresy.

Has the church not called Luther a heretic in the past, publicly? Pope Leo X did it...

Yes, but Pope Leo was, well, the Pope.

And that's why we should listen to him

Predicting what will follow let us remember the words of our Lord Matt 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

Of course not. But if you are trying to persuade someone that you're right and he's not, calling him an unlikable word based on an authority he does not accept is very unlikely to be effective.

Ummmmmmmmmmm.....maybe just say "I think you're wrong about that." and then proceed to give, with a tenor of charity, the reasons you think so.

But that isn't emotionally satisfying enough, you heretic!

Caught me!

At least no one has called anyone else a gheretic in this thread. That's crossing the line.

Is that because you're gherkin's sock puppy?

All joking aside...there have been Catholic priests who in sermons before Vatican II would say "the arch heretic Luther, or the arch heretic Arius". I don't see why the word heretic has to be considered offensive or not likable when it's simply stating the truth. Heresy is a denial of faith, so why can't we call out those who deny the truth publically?

You guys know that the church never had any issues with using the word heretic before Vatican II. Suddenly it became "offensive".

Perhaps I misunderstood the context of the original question.

I think he/she was asking when is it ok to do so? We don't want to go around and just accuse anyone of being a heretic...there needs to be some sort of proof/evidence for it?

Perhaps also there might be a pastoral concern.

If I say William Lane Craig is a heretic he's not really going to care because Catholic orthodoxy doesn't seem like a comers for him; but the Catholics who listen to his arguments for God's existence or so forth might want to know he is heretic when the hear him deny Divine Simplicity or his heretical christology

I believe the church has formally declared both Luther and Arius a heretic. With respect to them, you're just saying what the church has already said. If the context is your interaction with individuals, then you're far better saying something like, "The position you're espousing seems to me to be X-ism, a view the Church has deemed heretical. It holds so and so, which is, I believe, what you're saying now." That sort of commentary keeps the focus on the belief rather than on the person. If, then, they retort that they don't care if the church has deemed his position a heresy then you can proceed in any number of ways. At least you can proceed. But if you just label somebody a heretic, then as Obi said, you're ending the conversation right there, not starting one.