An earlier meaning of the term as used by Western writers was something like “school of thought” or “sect.” The sense of “religious opinion opposed to official church doctrine” evolved in the early Middle Ages.

The only time I have heard heretic (one who holds to heresy) or heresy used, that wasn’t an accusation, was in that song about “call me heretic, call me what you will”.

It almost seems that heresy is like the comic’s “New Jersey Laws” – nothing is illegal, as long as you don’t get caught.

I guess I am thinking that heretic is a label used as a reaction to publishing of contrary thought.

Most every system and faith reacts to expression, in word or deed, of heresy, rather than heretic-like opinion unexpressed. I would argue that waiving recognition of the thought or opinion as heretic moves the definition to publishing such though, rather than the opinion or thought itself.

Martin Luther believed that his questions of the Church and scriptures was rigorous scholarship, within the bounds of faith. When he posted his questions, though, the Church reacted with accusations of heresy. That is, it wasn’t heresy, or at least labeled or recognized as heresy, until someone reacted to publication of the thought or opinion.

So heresy requires three parts – the non-conforming thought, publication, and reaction to the publication.

What do you think?