recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 19, 2016 19:26:47 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. You did not substantiate your claim, please see my post above.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 19, 2016 19:38:56 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. You did not substantiate your claim, please see my post above. I have already fully explained my usage of the word.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 19, 2016 19:48:47 GMT -5
You did not substantiate your claim, please see my post above. I have already fully explained my usage of the word. Ok, now give me the authority that supports your claim that the censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the censure "heretical".
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 19, 2016 19:57:53 GMT -5
I have already fully explained my usage of the word. Ok, now give me the authority that supports your claim that the censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the censure "heretical". Please read my explanation again. I have explained myself fully. I said I am using the term in the secular sense. If you don't accept that, say so, and explain why.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 19, 2016 20:27:20 GMT -5
Ok, now give me the authority that supports your claim that the censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the censure "heretical". Please read my explanation again. I have explained myself fully. I said I am using the term in the secular sense. If you don't accept that, say so, and explain why. Was the term "offensive to pious ears" used in a "secular sense" as well? Either support or withdraw your claim.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 19, 2016 20:41:51 GMT -5
Is there a secular sense when discussing the Faith?.?? seems incongruent to me.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 19, 2016 22:34:07 GMT -5
Ok, now give me the authority that supports your claim that the censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the censure "heretical". Please read my explanation again. I have explained myself fully. I said I am using the term in the secular sense. If you don't accept that, say so, and explain why. This is not a secular forum. Provide a Catholic source or withdraw your assertion.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 3:46:46 GMT -5
Please read my explanation again. I have explained myself fully. I said I am using the term in the secular sense. If you don't accept that, say so, and explain why. This is not a secular forum. Provide a Catholic source or withdraw your assertion. Here it is, from the article THEOLOGICAL CENSURES in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "In early days, when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, an author, book, or tract was purely and simply announced heretical and anathematized. In the Middle ages, which were the ages of theological speculation and also of subtilty, a more minute notation had to be resorted to, and even special organs were created for that purpose (see Index of Prohibited Books). In recent times specific notes are often discarded in favor of a more comprehensive mode of censuring; damnandas et proscribendas esse."
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 20, 2016 6:09:56 GMT -5
This is not a secular forum. Provide a Catholic source or withdraw your assertion. Here it is, from the article THEOLOGICAL CENSURES in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "In early days, when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, an author, book, or tract was purely and simply announced heretical and anathematized. In the Middle ages, which were the ages of theological speculation and also of subtilty, a more minute notation had to be resorted to, and even special organs were created for that purpose (see Index of Prohibited Books). In recent times specific notes are often discarded in favor of a more comprehensive mode of censuring; damnandas et proscribendas esse." This does not support your position. This is speaking of what the early Church did in the past and you are claiming that the theological censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the broad censure of "heretical", in the present. In fact, this doesn't support your claim even if you were talking about the ancient Church. I want to be kind to you, but the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is not a source that should be used to support a very technical and specific theological issue. It does have it's value, but what you need for a reference is a theologian like Van Noort, Tanquerey, Jone, Davis, Prummer, or even Ott. What you are insinuating is false and not supported by any theologian as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 7:07:39 GMT -5
Here it is, from the article THEOLOGICAL CENSURES in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "In early days, when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, an author, book, or tract was purely and simply announced heretical and anathematized. In the Middle ages, which were the ages of theological speculation and also of subtilty, a more minute notation had to be resorted to, and even special organs were created for that purpose (see Index of Prohibited Books). In recent times specific notes are often discarded in favor of a more comprehensive mode of censuring; damnandas et proscribendas esse." This does not support your position. This is speaking of what the early Church did in the past and you are claiming that the theological censure "offensive to pious ears" is covered under the broad censure of "heretical", in the present. In fact, this doesn't support your claim even if you were talking about the ancient Church. I want to be kind to you, but the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is not a source that should be used to support a very technical and specific theological issue. It does have it's value, but what you need for a reference is a theologian like Van Noort, Tanquerey, Jone, Davis, Prummer, or even Ott. What you are insinuating is false and not supported by any theologian as far as I know. The Catholic Encylopedia here is merely relating an historical fact, nothing very technical about it. Based on this fact, Catholics who presently read any past announcement from before the middle ages of something being "heretical", means we should comprehend as we read them the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean outright heresy but may include any other lesser censures as we know them today. Nothing at all dangerous with that otherwise the Church would have said something. It appears to me that you yourself are holding the position that such usage is condemned. You would have to prove that yourself using a Catholic source. When the Church changes Her official practice like that, it is because it is "better", which does not imply that what went before was bad. There is good, and there is better. It is still good in common, unofficial usage, to say something is heretical when it is a danger to the faith without being outright heresy. Considering the present better usage, it would be more fitting for me to alter my description in the present to saying something has an "heretical character". This is what I gather from more recent sources.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 20, 2016 11:48:32 GMT -5
I have to disagree...to call every danger to the faith a heresy...you cloud and muddle the definition of true heresys. What that causes is confusion. Im not sure why your so adamsntly married to your position...simply recant and clarify. A nun can be a danger to your faith if you lust after her...that does not make the nun a heresy. The Church if it is anything it is crystal clear and accurate...should we not be the same?
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 12:06:24 GMT -5
I have to disagree...to call every danger to the faith a heresy...you cloud and muddle the definition of true heresys. What that causes is confusion. Im not sure why your so adamsntly married to your position...simply recant and clarify. A nun can be a danger to your faith if you lust after her...that does not make the nun a heresy. The Church if it is anything it is crystal clear and accurate...should we not be the same? I did not say that every danger to the faith is a heresy. I said that "heretical" can mean anything from actual heresy to beliefs requiring lesser censure that are a danger to faith. Do you disagree with the fact stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia that this was the case for centuries, and that we must understand those documents precisely the same way? Lust is a moral violation. It is not erroneous belief touching doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 20, 2016 12:31:11 GMT -5
I have to disagree...to call every danger to the faith a heresy...you cloud and muddle the definition of true heresys. What that causes is confusion. Im not sure why your so adamsntly married to your position...simply recant and clarify. A nun can be a danger to your faith if you lust after her...that does not make the nun a heresy. The Church if it is anything it is crystal clear and accurate...should we not be the same? I did not say that every danger to the faith is a heresy. I said that "heretical" can mean anything from actual heresy to beliefs requiring lesser censure that are a danger to faith. Do you disagree with the fact stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia that this was the case for centuries, and that we must understand those documents precisely the same way? Lust is a moral violation. It is not erroneous belief touching doctrine. Theology has advanced since the early days. St. Thomas, by applying the principles of Aristotelian philosophy to theology, was able to systematically advance theology and give it more precision. Since the time of St. Thomas, this has only advanced more and more using his method and system. It seems that you are arguing for less precision and more ambiguity, which goes contrary to Catholic theology as it has existed and organically developed since the Middle Ages. No one is arguing in favor of errors against the Faith, we all know that error is unorthodox and to wilfully hold error is a mortal sin. What we will not do is label errors against the Faith that are not at the level of heresy as heresy. There is a difference. By the way, I do not agree with you on your assertion regarding Pope John XXII. I will get to that later.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 14:39:03 GMT -5
I did not say that every danger to the faith is a heresy. I said that "heretical" can mean anything from actual heresy to beliefs requiring lesser censure that are a danger to faith. Do you disagree with the fact stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia that this was the case for centuries, and that we must understand those documents precisely the same way? Lust is a moral violation. It is not erroneous belief touching doctrine. Theology has advanced since the early days. St. Thomas, by applying the principles of Aristotelian philosophy to theology, was able to systematically advance theology and give it more precision. Since the time of St. Thomas, this has only advanced more and more using his method and system. It seems that you are arguing for less precision and more ambiguity, which goes contrary to Catholic theology as it has existed and organically developed since the Middle Ages. No one is arguing in favor of errors against the Faith, we all know that error is unorthodox and to wilfully hold error is a mortal sin. What we will not do is label errors against the Faith that are not at the level of heresy as heresy. There is a difference. By the way, I do not agree with you on your assertion regarding Pope John XXII. I will get to that later. The quote I gave already made it clear that there was a development in the system of classifying error, and I already admitted that it was better. It was not against truth before the middle ages to generalize error as heretical, and it is not so now. In the first place, the newer system was designed for competent authorities to use when condemning the error. It wasn't designed for the average Catholic who had to first notice, fight and warn of error before higher authority condemned it. So, historically, both the laity and clergy were using "heretical" for all levels of error against the faith, and then when the Church advanced to its system of levels of censure, where did the Church anywhere suddenly say that the practice of the laity could no longer generalize? If that is your stance, you will need to give a Catholic source for it. You are merely trying to use reason, and I am too. If you insist on filling Catholics' minds today with the sole notion that "heretical" equals "heresy" the consequence would be that when Catholics read documents from before the middle ages condemning all levels of errors as heretical, you would be forcing them to consider lesser censurable matter as being actually heresy, which would be against truth - the very truth that you say is so important with the new system! That detrimental consequence shows solidly that what you are trying to do should not be done.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 20, 2016 15:12:40 GMT -5
You haven't so much as proved that "heresy" was once used in a more general sense than it is today.
|
|