|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 16, 2016 9:28:46 GMT -5
All heresys are a danger to your faith...but not all dangers are heresys. Good post though All that is satanic is not satanism. Abortion is satanic, but not all those who perform one are practicing satanism. The adjective "heretical" is used in the same manner. It is something that erodes the faith, but does not immediately and explicitly deny the faith. The Church will even condemn something that it true, but which is expressed so poorly that it is apt to harm the faith. One such term for something heretical is "offensive to pious ears".
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 16, 2016 10:45:59 GMT -5
is there a precise definition of heresy?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 16, 2016 10:59:05 GMT -5
People must realize that the term "Catholic" doesn't just solve the matter. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic, and the day before his excommunication Fr. Martin Luther was a Catholic. Merely being a "Catholic" is not the end of the discussion. The discussion is really about whether there is a danger, and about our obligation to stay away from that danger. Sure, before his excommunication, some people loosely would say, "Stay away from that Fr. Martin Luther, he is a heretic!" and others could respond, "Wait a minute, alas! he is still a Catholic!". But let's really not quibble about terminology when obviously the hyperbole means that the man is a danger to your faith because he holds heretical views. Sometimes hyperbole is needed in order to grab the emotion of the seriousness of the situation. Places in Scripture have even used hyperbole. As far as I am concerned, going to an SSPX chapel regularly is a serious danger to one's faith. Technically "Catholic"? Sure, but nevertheless, when something is a danger to your faith, it is considered "heretical". Martin Luther was an undeclared heretic prior to his excommunication. Any Catholic that recognized that fact was duty bound to avoid him. If one is aware that priest X is a heretic, then one must avoid him, even prior to the judgment of the Church. Many, if not all, of the traditional or conservative priests are not heretics, so there is no duty to avoid them. I have yet to see specific cases made against any of them which demonstrate heresy and pertinacity. One also has the option of just going to mass, and just go home, thereby staying out of the group mentality that often goes along with these private chapels. Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to learn their Faith from these unapproved groups and priests. If they choose to go to these priests just for Mass, then that is all they should do, and be very careful about everything else, this goes for sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist alike.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 16, 2016 18:32:42 GMT -5
People must realize that the term "Catholic" doesn't just solve the matter. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic, and the day before his excommunication Fr. Martin Luther was a Catholic. Merely being a "Catholic" is not the end of the discussion. The discussion is really about whether there is a danger, and about our obligation to stay away from that danger. Sure, before his excommunication, some people loosely would say, "Stay away from that Fr. Martin Luther, he is a heretic!" and others could respond, "Wait a minute, alas! he is still a Catholic!". But let's really not quibble about terminology when obviously the hyperbole means that the man is a danger to your faith because he holds heretical views. Sometimes hyperbole is needed in order to grab the emotion of the seriousness of the situation. Places in Scripture have even used hyperbole. As far as I am concerned, going to an SSPX chapel regularly is a serious danger to one's faith. Technically "Catholic"? Sure, but nevertheless, when something is a danger to your faith, it is considered "heretical". Martin Luther was an undeclared heretic prior to his excommunication. Any Catholic that recognized that fact was duty bound to avoid him. If one is aware that priest X is a heretic, then one must avoid him, even prior to the judgment of the Church. Many, if not all, of the traditional or conservative priests are not heretics, so there is no duty to avoid them. I have yet to see specific cases made against any of them which demonstrate heresy and pertinacity. One also has the option of just going to mass, and just go home, thereby staying out of the group mentality that often goes along with these private chapels. Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to learn their Faith from these unapproved groups and priests. If they choose to go to these priests just for Mass, then that is all they should do, and be very careful about everything else, this goes for sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist alike. You almost have it. However, you need to see first of all that a "heretic", strictly speaking, is a person who has been determined by superior authority to be pertinacious. This is only accomplished by more than one admonition by superior authority, and subsequent refusals to comply. This means that avoiding an "undeclared heretic" merely means that we cannot tell whether he is pertinacious, but that our own moral judgment discerns the objective danger and then we know our resulting obligation to avoid that danger to our faith.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 17, 2016 5:59:47 GMT -5
People really ought to have a precise understanding of concepts like heresy and Church membership before they start running around excommunicating everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 17, 2016 6:48:26 GMT -5
Martin Luther was an undeclared heretic prior to his excommunication. Any Catholic that recognized that fact was duty bound to avoid him. If one is aware that priest X is a heretic, then one must avoid him, even prior to the judgment of the Church. Many, if not all, of the traditional or conservative priests are not heretics, so there is no duty to avoid them. I have yet to see specific cases made against any of them which demonstrate heresy and pertinacity. One also has the option of just going to mass, and just go home, thereby staying out of the group mentality that often goes along with these private chapels. Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to learn their Faith from these unapproved groups and priests. If they choose to go to these priests just for Mass, then that is all they should do, and be very careful about everything else, this goes for sedevacantist and non-sedevacantist alike. You almost have it. However, you need to see first of all that a "heretic", strictly speaking, is a person who has been determined by superior authority to be pertinacious. This is only accomplished by more than one admonition by superior authority, and subsequent refusals to comply. This means that avoiding an "undeclared heretic" merely means that we cannot tell whether he is pertinacious, but that our own moral judgment discerns the objective danger and then we know our resulting obligation to avoid that danger to our faith. I must add, because so many people get this wrong....the fact that a pope does not have a superior on earth to determine his pertinacity. Where people get this wrong is that they stop there and make their conclusion that we can never know if a pope is pertinacious! The fact is, a pope has SOMETHING that nobody else has - "Where the pope is, there is the Church". He has infallibility. All the books say that if he becomes a manifest heretic, or explicit heretic, we KNOW that he is no longer pope. This is based on the dogma that "the Church" can do nothing harmful or even useless in her liturgy, laws or teaching. If we see the Church do this by the permission of the pope, then we know as a dogmatic fact that the man cannot be a true pope. We cannot ask for bread and the Church give us a stone. It has nothing to do with whether the Church forces us to swallow that stone because the Church cannot GIVE that to us. Vatican II is a stone, and it matters not whether people claim we were not forced to believe it....we CANNOT be given that by "the Church". In rality, it's not the Church, ONLY because that man is not a true pope. We are compelled to recognized that false popes carry on Vatican II.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 19, 2016 3:36:01 GMT -5
All heresys are a danger to your faith...but not all dangers are heresys. Good post though All that is satanic is not satanism. Abortion is satanic, but not all those who perform one are practicing satanism. The adjective "heretical" is used in the same manner. It is something that erodes the faith, but does not immediately and explicitly deny the faith. The Church will even condemn something that it true, but which is expressed so poorly that it is apt to harm the faith. One such term for something heretical is "offensive to pious ears". It is my understanding that heretical is not a broad term covering several qualifications, but is specific to heresy. Can you quote a reference that supports this?
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 19, 2016 9:36:19 GMT -5
It is my understanding that heretical is not a broad term covering several qualifications, but is specific to heresy. Can you quote a reference that supports this? I hear crickets in the distance... For the unaware, a heresy is an error against dogma. You can go pretty far without adhering to an error against dogma. Hopefully this document will be helpful to some.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 19, 2016 10:55:39 GMT -5
It is my understanding that heretical is not a broad term covering several qualifications, but is specific to heresy. Can you quote a reference that supports this? I hear crickets in the distance... For the unaware, a heresy is an error against dogma. You can go pretty far without adhering to an error against dogma. Hopefully this document will be helpful to some. We can do without the snark...its effeminant.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 19, 2016 11:04:52 GMT -5
We can do without the snark...its effeminant. The "get off my lawn" e-persona was already taken so I needed another gimmick...
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 19, 2016 11:07:47 GMT -5
I feel ya dog..lol ..but your making good points and its a good thread...so use some disgrecion
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 19, 2016 13:33:12 GMT -5
All that is satanic is not satanism. Abortion is satanic, but not all those who perform one are practicing satanism. The adjective "heretical" is used in the same manner. It is something that erodes the faith, but does not immediately and explicitly deny the faith. The Church will even condemn something that it true, but which is expressed so poorly that it is apt to harm the faith. One such term for something heretical is "offensive to pious ears". It is my understanding that heretical is not a broad term covering several qualifications, but is specific to heresy. Can you quote a reference that supports this? When the Church uses the term in the document that condemns a belief, then it is equivalent to heresy. There are various levels of seriousness under that where expressions are condemned, without being an explicit denial, but which are dangerous to faith. Dangerous, meaning apt to lead to heresy. I like to use the English adjective in the secular sense to get the point across that lesser censures are serious. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who have this idea that if something is not actual heresy, then it is acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 19, 2016 15:27:00 GMT -5
It is my understanding that heretical is not a broad term covering several qualifications, but is specific to heresy. Can you quote a reference that supports this? When the Church uses the term in the document that condemns a belief, then it is equivalent to heresy. There are various levels of seriousness under that where expressions are condemned, without being an explicit denial, but which are dangerous to faith. Dangerous, meaning apt to lead to heresy. I like to use the English adjective in the secular sense to get the point across that lesser censures are serious. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who have this idea that if something is not actual heresy, then it is acceptable. I agree, any error against the Faith is a serious matter, but it would be good for all on here (who are unaware of these distinctions) to learn the different notes used by the Church and the consequences that follow. I just posted it in the TC library for convenience: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/345/theological-notes-church?page=1&scrollTo=2994Only public heresy cuts a member off by that very act. Lessor errors against the Faith must be dealt with by ecclesiastical authority and may result in excommunication, but do not automatically sever the member from the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 19, 2016 19:04:42 GMT -5
When the Church uses the term in the document that condemns a belief, then it is equivalent to heresy. There are various levels of seriousness under that where expressions are condemned, without being an explicit denial, but which are dangerous to faith. Dangerous, meaning apt to lead to heresy. I like to use the English adjective in the secular sense to get the point across that lesser censures are serious. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who have this idea that if something is not actual heresy, then it is acceptable. I agree, any error against the Faith is a serious matter, but it would be good for all on here (who are unaware of these distinctions) to learn the different notes used by the Church and the consequences that follow. I just posted it in the TC library for convenience: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/345/theological-notes-church?page=1&scrollTo=2994Only public heresy cuts a member off by that very act. Lessor errors against the Faith must be dealt with by ecclesiastical authority and may result in excommunication, but do not automatically sever the member from the Church. Very nice to have the theological notes, and with examples! It is not correct that, "Only public heresy cuts a member off by that very act". Pope John XXII expressed heresy that was known publicly, but he was not cut off from the Church by that fact. Nor was Fr. Martin Luther. The answer is that "public" heresy is not the same as "manifest" (or explicit) heresy. Fr. Martin Luther did not become a manifest heretic until the Church gave Her admonitions and he spurned them. Since popes do not have a superior, John XXII would have become a manifest heretic only if he taught his error in the official universal organs of the Church. The Vatican II papal claimants are manifest heretics. Speaking of the different notes of censures, the SSPX lives and promotes a position that is censurable, dangerous to the faith, and a mortal sin against the faith. This is the reason why everyone should stay clear, by moral obligation, from attending SSPX Mass centers.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 19, 2016 19:23:32 GMT -5
When the Church uses the term in the document that condemns a belief, then it is equivalent to heresy. There are various levels of seriousness under that where expressions are condemned, without being an explicit denial, but which are dangerous to faith. Dangerous, meaning apt to lead to heresy. I like to use the English adjective in the secular sense to get the point across that lesser censures are serious. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who have this idea that if something is not actual heresy, then it is acceptable. I agree, any error against the Faith is a serious matter, but it would be good for all on here (who are unaware of these distinctions) to learn the different notes used by the Church and the consequences that follow. I just posted it in the TC library for convenience: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/345/theological-notes-church?page=1&scrollTo=2994Only public heresy cuts a member off by that very act. Lessor errors against the Faith must be dealt with by ecclesiastical authority and may result in excommunication, but do not automatically sever the member from the Church. Of course you are right, Pacelli, but CC wrote the following: "The adjective "heretical" is used in the same manner. It is something that erodes the faith, but does not immediately and explicitly deny the faith. The Church will even condemn something that it true, but which is expressed so poorly that it is apt to harm the faith. One such term for something heretical is "offensive to pious ears". He is suggesting that the theological censure "heretical" is NOT used solely to condemn an heretical proposition (something that contradicts dogma), but is used in a broad sense to include lessor censures. I am not aware of any authority that uses the theological censure "heretical" other than to condemn heresy. He is saying that the censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the censure of "heretical". I say he is wrong and I am asking him for an authority to support his claim.
|
|