Heretics?

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Non Sequitur. The argument Growing up protestant doesnt necessarily conclude to not having legitimate opportunity.

Besides. Not being Catholic is not an excuse, it is a imputed defect, nor, hard as it is to believe, does it release them from their obligations of being virtuous Catholics. You see, this is the error thinking of today. We are not in a natural environment of many Divinely acceptable religions sharing one thing in common, substituting tolerance with acceptance.

I am in no way denying that the fullness of truth exists solely in the Catholic Church, nor that some Proestants are willfully in stubborn denial about the Truth. I am merely being charitable to those who are not, and have never been, Catholic. It is impossible for either of us to be certain whether (for example) a life-long Baptist knows that the Church speaks the with the fullness of Truth. Therefore, I feel that charity demands that we assume the best about our separated brothers as we try to instruct them.

What you are seeing is the effect of parent sin or the instigator. It propagates child sins. If the person were Catholic in it's true definition, then he cannot commit heresy.

Again, perhaps I misunderstand you, but it is only Catholics who can commit heresy. Unless by truly Catholic, you mean believing all the doctrines of the faith, in which case it's not a relevant statement to the discussion at hand.

Your point is that their position cannot be imputed to them to begin with, and you imply we accept this and it's consequences, therefore they cannot be culpable of the effects.

My point, actually, is given here: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/h...m_apostasy.htm , with the salient portion being,

"Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth." (bold emphasis is mine)

As to the second point, I say again that no one can be certain as to whether another is ultimately responsible for ignorance.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[bksumm]

Hello Larry,

The Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit, canonized the "true" books of the Bible. In A.D. 382 with the decree of Pope Damasus I (Jurgens, "Faith of our Early Fathers" p. 404). Afterwards the councils of Hippo in A.D. 393, and Carthage A.D. 397 approved the present OT and NT canons. Finally, Pope St Innocent closed the canon of the Bible in A.D 405. The canon was reafirmed at the Council of Trent. (Chacon & Burnham, "Begining Apologetics 1) As a Catholic, there is no room for private judgement regarding what is the true word of God.

Originally Posted by larry85704

An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.


Today we are discovering things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries are historically accurate and do add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus, the Jews and the early Church. I think most people accept that. It is very easy to read something from the internet, about how some Scriptural mystery's solution is revealed, and believe it. It becomes part of our Faith. This is a formation of our Faith from sources outside the established Church. It is special knowledge.

[/u]?

The writings of Thomas are Gnostic writings and they weren't discovered at Qumran (Dead Sea) but rather at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain writings from the Old Testament and none from the New. They include the books of Psalms, Deuteronomy, 1 Enoch, Genesis, Isaiah, etc. These discovered writings don't "add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus."

The Gospel of Thomas was obviously rejected, as was Gnosticism, by the Church centuries ago. It isn't orthodox. If one wants to be Gnostic...then by all means follow Gnostic teachings. I for one follow the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

[NHInsider]

Originally Posted by AndyF

Ne_OrangeKnight:

As it relates to the second observation in my post.



Non Sequitur. The argument Growing up protestant doesnt necessarily conclude to not having legitimate opportunity.

Besides. Not being Catholic is not an excuse, it is a imputed defect, nor, hard as it is to believe, does it release them from their obligations of being virtuous Catholics.
-snip-
Your point is that their position cannot be imputed to them to begin with, and you imply we accept this and it's consequences, therefore they cannot be culpable of the effects.

-snip-

So it is a rare protestant that is invincibly ignorant, some would say borderline oxymoronic, starting from the first enticement of knowing the true Church does exist.

It would appear from the above quotation that you believe Unitatis Redintegratio to be in error? That's a pretty big presumption.

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. . . .it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. . .For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

[AndyF]

Originally Posted by NHInsider

It would appear from the above quotation that you believe Unitatis Redintegratio to be in error? That's a pretty big presumption.

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. . . .it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. . .For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

They cannot be accused of the sin of separation, but they suffer the effects, which among others could be complacency,resignation,indifference and critiques toward other religions. More seriously, there are bound to be individuals who will eventually find themselves borderline and may have been saved by the additional graces only provided by the Church.

Full benefit cannot be appreciated without the conclusion to your quoted chapter....

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings.

The Church, then, is God's only flock;

1. The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

---------------------------------------------
Radio Replies Vol I (frs Rumble,Carty, Msgr Cardinal FJ Sheen)

q. But why keep insisting that the Catholic church is the only Church?
a. Because Christ said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be has the heathen." He did not say, "If a man will not hear a portion of the Gospel in man-made substitute churches."

And from the first reformer we see the effects today....

Sir 41,5 "A reprobate line are the children of sinners, and witless offspring are in the homes of the wicked. Their dominion is lost to sinner's children, and reproach abides with their descendants."

Andy

[AndyF]

Originally Posted by Ne_OrangeKnight

I am in no way denying that the fullness of truth exists solely in the Catholic Church, nor that some Proestants are willfully in .....

OK, i understand.

My point, actually, is given here: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/h...m_apostasy.htm , with the salient portion being,

"Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth." (bold emphasis is mine)

Are you sure this isn't Sententia Fidei Proxima? All due respect and reverence to the author/s, 2/ should follow with, "in which case their conscience would provide for the source for right reason. But I can understand why it wouldn't be included has it would negate 1/.

Ignorance of the Truth is not a prerequisite for exemption from discernment,responsibility and duty. Genesis shows how God graced man with a conscience until such day that the truth be revealed, and conscience is still at work
since.

From newadvent/sin:

"There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of has being prohibited. A prohibition is unitelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding conscience of man can only be God."

From this base precept let us form an anology.

Bob, born of Protestant parents, has no knowledge that what he is advocating willfully and with persistence against a church that is not his is wrong. With a well honed conscience, he would be able to discern at least confusedly that there is something wrong with his position. But in his case it may be lacking, therefore not leaving any residue of uncertainty. (The guilt of not possessing a well honed conscience can also be imputed to him.)

We will see that those laws that are in common to Protestantism and Catholicism he is responsible according to them. The remaining laws he is ignorant of he will be responsible for without reference to them.

Rom 2,12

"Sinners who do not have the law will perish without reference to it; sinners bound by the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is
not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just."

Immediately we perceive his dilema. By not having reference to the law (imputed to his church by the first schism, ie: compounding) which may be the point of his heretical objection against some precept of the Catholic church, he is held in a possible precarious position by the state of his conscience for anything else not covered.

This was my gist of my point. Lacking ignorance to the truth, God still has made backup provision in the form of conscience for all man from the time of Adam onward.

Therefore, by inference of all the references in this case Bob would be guilty.

Andy

[larry85704]

There is no further public revelation.

Really?

What Church teaching supports your statement? Realize what you are saying is that God cannot appear to anybody and say anything. If He chooses to appear at the super bowl and make His revelation to millions that would not be private revelation. Could He do such a thing? Of course He could, or do you know something else I am not aware of?

[Alindawyl]

Originally Posted by larry85704

Really?

What Church teaching supports your statement? Realize what you are saying is that God cannot appear to anybody and say anything. If He chooses to appear at the super bowl and make His revelation to millions that would not be private revelation. Could He do such a thing? Of course He could, or do you know something else I am not aware of?

God can do all things which are possible. But that doesn't mean he will. He has chosen to do things in a certain way, with a certain plan in mind. That plan does not include giving us new public Revelation.

I assume the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an acceptable source for Chuch teaching on this subject:

III. CHRIST JESUS -- "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

[larry85704]

There is the Word of God. I think this is contained in and limited to the Bible, as defined by the Catholic Church.

There is the Catholic Church, which is based on the authority of the Apostles and the Popes. I hope nobody would confuse the Catholic Church and the Word of God. They are definitely different. I am not saying the Catholic Church supports positions contrary to the Word of God, just that they are different.

The Catholic Church is a work in progress. Historically changes to the Catholic Church have occurred throughout the existence of the Church. If you don't believe this, then what did Vatican II do? I will go so far as to speculate that faith and the Church are different. Like rocks and butterflies, they are different.

As far as a new public revelation, I believe it is possible. I do not feel that the Church has the ability to tell God what He can and cannot do. What I do find myself thinking about is if the Church can, by any means, do something that will affect faith. Any thoughts on that?

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

My thoughts:

The Word of God is not just the Bible, but is also found in Sacred Tradition.

Vatican II set up changes in the way things were done, i.e. disciplines (Mass in the vernacular, meat on Fridays, etc.) It in no way changed any article of faith; the dogmata of the Church before the council were the same as they are after.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[alfredthegrate]

[quote=larry85704;4966033]Hello

The Catholic Church as a vast body of beliefs and teachings that define the Catholic Faith. There is a vast body of writings that, to my knowledge, are not accepted by the Church. An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.

T like what Mark Twain said and I paraphrase. The text is still there but the Church changed. Reluctantly.

[DanteAlighieri]

Originally Posted by larry85704

There is the Word of God. I think this is contained in and limited to the Bible, as defined by the Catholic Church.

No. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Though both Scripture and Tradition of the Church are divinely inspired, Christ is the Word through whom all things were created.

There is the Catholic Church, which is based on the authority of the Apostles and the Popes. I hope nobody would confuse the Catholic Church and the Word of God. They are definitely different. I am not saying the Catholic Church supports positions contrary to the Word of God, just that they are different.

In the sense that the Church is the Body of Christ, no. The Church's teachings are guided and protected from error by God Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church is a work in progress. Historically changes to the Catholic Church have occurred throughout the existence of the Church. If you don't believe this, then what did Vatican II do? I will go so far as to speculate that faith and the Church are different. Like rocks and butterflies, they are different.

NO! The Church is not a work in progress; the Church teaches the same dogmas that it has taught since its inception. While our understanding of truth may evolve, the truth that we teach is constant. Insofar as the Catholic faith embodies all that a Catholic MUST believe, then there is little point in drawing a distinction between the Church and the faith.

Vatican II did not make changes in the teachings of the Church -- it made changes in some of the practices (e.g., the use of chapel veils; the use of the vernacular language instead of exclusively using Lating, etc.)

As far as a new public revelation, I believe it is possible. I do not feel that the Church has the ability to tell God what He can and cannot do. What I do find myself thinking about is if the Church can, by any means, do something that will affect faith. Any thoughts on that?

The Church teaches infallibly that we should not expect any further public revelation. Is it possible that there may be some?

Well, the Church always teaches that Christ will come again. Is it possible that He will not?

No.

Peace,
Dante

[Alindawyl]

Originally Posted by larry85704

I do not feel that the Church has the ability to tell God what He can and cannot do.

God is the one who tells us his public revelation is complete. The Church is just doing her job of instructing us in what God has revealed.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by larry85704

...I seem to remember that people were burned at the stake for being heretics, by the Church.

No, they were not burned at the stake by the Church. They were burned at the stake by the civil government, which considered heresy to be a crime against the state. That's a critical distinction.

Originally Posted by larry85704

...One of the reasons they were burned was they professed to have special knowledge of God...

Indeed? Perhaps you could provide a specific case in which that was the reason for the sentence?

Originally Posted by larry85704

...I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible...

Indeed? Perhaps you could provide a specific case?

[larry85704]

No, they were not burned at the stake by the Church. They were burned at the stake by the civil government, which considered heresy to be a crime against the state. That's a critical distinction

I am sure many of you are much more knowledgeable than me, but I am pretty sure that the distinction between Church and State has changed a bunch over the years. My case in point is the Crucification of Jesus. If the Jews hadn't got their nose out of joint Jesus would not have been crucified. But the Romans technically crucified Him.

As for the reason why people got burned at the stake, I was taught that in a religious studies class I took in school. My point is that people died for professing a knowledge of God that was not consistent with the teachings of the Church. To state the Church did not kill them is alot like saying the Jews didn't kill Jesus. Technically you are right, but you are also not right.

Do we really need to come up with such clever ways to deny the truth?

As far as faith is concerned, consider this. Is not faith a gift from God? It is not given to everyone. The Church is also a gift from God, it is a different gift. The Church is a place to practice your faith.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by larry85704

I am sure many of you are much more knowledgeable than me, but I am pretty sure that the distinction between Church and State has changed a bunch over the years. My case in point is the Crucification of Jesus. If the Jews hadn't got their nose out of joint Jesus would not have been crucified. But the Romans technically crucified Him.

As for the reason why people got burned at the stake, I was taught that in a religious studies class I took in school. My point is that people died for professing a knowledge of God that was not consistent with the teachings of the Church. To state the Church did not kill them is alot like saying the Jews didn't kill Jesus. Technically you are right, but you are also not right.

Do we really need to come up with such clever ways to deny the truth?...

The refusal to recognise key distinctions is a sure sign of sloppy thinking, which leads inevitably to false conclusions.