|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 16:13:27 GMT -5
You haven't so much as proved that "heresy" was once used in a more general sense than it is today. I have proved that "heretical" encompassed heresy and any lesser censurable opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 20, 2016 16:49:44 GMT -5
I have proved that "heretical" encompassed heresy and any lesser censurable opinions. The Catholic Encyclopedia article notes that this applied when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, in other words when troublemakers were disputing things that are explicitly taught by the Church as revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 20, 2016 17:03:13 GMT -5
I have proved that "heretical" encompassed heresy and any lesser censurable opinions. The Catholic Encyclopedia article notes that this applied when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, in other words when troublemakers were disputing things that are explicitly taught by the Church as revealed. You just invented your "in other words". That is not what it is implying. In the context of the article, it is precisely saying that "heretical" encompassed everything and that later the lesser censures were categorized. Everyone knows that in history the biggest troublemakers were the one who actually didn't outright deny cardinal truths, but subtly corrupted them, and that is what the lesser censurable material does.
|
|
recusant
Approved Cath Resource contributor
Posts: 86
|
Post by recusant on Aug 21, 2016 3:42:03 GMT -5
The Catholic Encyclopedia article notes that this applied when the cardinal truths of Christianity were at stake, in other words when troublemakers were disputing things that are explicitly taught by the Church as revealed. You just invented your "in other words". That is not what it is implying. In the context of the article, it is precisely saying that "heretical" encompassed everything and that later the lesser censures were categorized. Everyone knows that in history the biggest troublemakers were the one who actually didn't outright deny cardinal truths, but subtly corrupted them, and that is what the lesser censurable material does. CC, your interpretation of a small passage from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is not what is needed to support your case. You were writing in the context of the present and you need to find an authority to defend your position. Voxx......sorry for the derail.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 6:29:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 6:30:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 7:17:04 GMT -5
You just invented your "in other words". That is not what it is implying. In the context of the article, it is precisely saying that "heretical" encompassed everything and that later the lesser censures were categorized. Everyone knows that in history the biggest troublemakers were the one who actually didn't outright deny cardinal truths, but subtly corrupted them, and that is what the lesser censurable material does. CC, your interpretation of a small passage from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is not what is needed to support your case. You were writing in the context of the present and you need to find an authority to defend your position. Voxx......sorry for the derail. It's not an interpretation. We all comprehend that this is what was done before the middle ages, and nobody has yet addressed what I mentioned about the mind of a Catholic who, today, reads condemnations that were made before then. How would you handle one of these texts if they were quoted here...insist that "heretical" meant "heresy" about every error mentioned in the document? Until that is done, I have no problem using "heretical" only as "heresy" in matters after the middle ages; the system works. However, remember, a counter claim has also been made here, but nobody has given a source "authority" saying that Catholics must, after the middle ages, regard the term "heretical" in only one sense, namely, "heresy". It would really be ironic to see the same person claim it is a valid opinion to claim Francis is a true pope, while saying it is not a valid opinion to use "heretical" today for lesser censures than heresy. If not a valid opinion, then where would that fit on the censure grid? "Unsafe"? and why? It may be good for another thread. Opinionism in regard to the current so-called pope is a serious sin. That is for sure. Not heresy. I will go into detail soon.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 21, 2016 7:34:33 GMT -5
You haven't so much as proved that "heresy" was once used in a more general sense than it is today. We are living today, not in the 5th century. Your method of reverting to a less precise standard is not the practice of the Church as it existed for centuries. The Church has allowed its theologians to better distinguish between heresy and lesser forms of doctrinal error. Your ideas on this remind me greatly of Feeneyites who play with theology and do as they please, rather than learn theology in the method that the Church gives us. The Feeneyites look at the ancient Fathers for supposed support for the position, and you, look at a former usage of a term, that has not been used in the way you are using it for a very long time, despite the fact that the Church through its teaching authority and authorized theologians has used much more clear and specific terms in the form of precise notes for hundreds of years at least. I would also refer you to this post in the library regarding Pope John XXII. I stand by my assertion regarding public heretics.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 21, 2016 7:36:28 GMT -5
No. It is the opposite view, so called "anti-opinionism," that is an error that is rooted in liberalism.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 7:46:29 GMT -5
You haven't so much as proved that "heresy" was once used in a more general sense than it is today. We are living today, not in the 5th century. Your method of reverting to a less precise standard is not the practice of the Church as it existed for centuries. The Church has allowed its theologians to better distinguish between heresy and lesser forms of doctrinal error. Your ideas on this remind me greatly of Feeneyites who play with theology and do as they please, rather than learn theology in the method that the Church gives us. The Feeneyites look at the ancient Fathers for supposed support for the position, and you, look at a former usage of a term, that has not been used in the way you are using it for a very long time, despite the fact that the Church through its teaching authority and authorized theologians has used much more clear and specific terms in the form of precise notes for hundreds of years at least. I would also refer you to this post in the library regarding Pope John XXII. I stand by my assertion regarding public heretics. As much as you now hint that this is doctrinal and theology, it is not, otherwise the Church would not have practiced it at one time Herself. I am not reverting to anything. It's as if you really aren't reading what I write. I already said I fully accept as "better" the system arranged in the middle ages, and have no problem on a lay level handling it that way. However, in the Church, on a lay level, there are certainly various terms that have more than one denotation. It is your claim that on a lay level the laity should have ceased using the term "heretical" for lesser censures when the Church adopted the official practice of a censure gradation. Sorry, but I doubt that is the case, and you have not produced anything for your claim. You seem to avoid addressing all the reasoned points I have brought up.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 10:02:10 GMT -5
It seems this as degenerated into stubborn vocabulary turf war. I proclaim hereto for...the descriptor "heretical" at this forum shall and only refer to actual heresys. This settles it here. I grant pardon any previous possible Mistakes made on the matter frpm either party in the debate. So let us discuss weightier matters.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 12:03:12 GMT -5
I have listened to the full sermon*, and appreciate Voxx's comment about him being concerned about his position. It is an excellent sermon succinctly giving us the truth on this matter. * ( Not a talk. Here is the prime definition from A Catholic Dictionary - "SERMON (Lat. sermo, speech). i. A generic term applied to any sort of religious discourse. ""
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 21, 2016 12:45:12 GMT -5
Only if you've become a dedicated trad-sectarian.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 13:03:44 GMT -5
Only if you've become a dedicated trad-sectarian. And what pray tell is that?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 21, 2016 13:23:13 GMT -5
Only if you've become a dedicated trad-sectarian. And what pray tell is that? When the pocket of traditionalism to which one subscribes becomes the Church.
|
|