Am I in heresy? Be honest

[Abu]

livingwordunity
You mistakenly attributed Roy5’s quote to me. I’m 100% Catholic and in support of all that the Church teaches

Livingwordunity,
I did indeed – my apologies to a faithful Catholic. Pardon, my age is showing.

So to correct the error:

Roy5 #33
I would leave it up to that couple to decide whether they would depend fully upon Church-approved birth control or employ artificial birth control.

That is dissent from the definitive teaching of Christ through His Church and misleads others.
Real Catholics follow Christ and His Magisterium knowing that His Church has condemned contraception infallibly as gravely sinful; Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968.
Natural Birth Regulation is worthy for serious, just reasons.

The individual couple has to prayerfully and with counseling, if needed, decide what for them constitute just, serious reasons.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving “from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions” (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

 

[Roy5]

These arguments that marital relations with artificial birth control is somehow interfering with God’s will or selfish pleasure-seeking - these arguments fall flat.

 If it is interfering with God's will that the couple have a baby, then the church-approved method of birth control should also be viewed as interfering with God's will. Obviously, it's objective is the same, deliberately avoiding pregnancy.

 Now, as for selfish pleasure-seeking, or mutual masturbation as some even charge, this is really wild. Married couples express their love through marital relations. such occasions help bond the couple together, give one to the other, provide an atmosphere for expression of deep and deepening affection, and renew in a major sense the covenant of intimate marriage.

 To view such marital relations, using artificial birth control, as only a physical act is to rob it of all sorts of positive benefits. A celibate clergy may be tempted to see only the physical dimensions, but they aren't married men and women who look forward to demonstrating and deepening their love through the beauty and intimacy of sexual union.

  Actually, the sharp condemnation of birth control strikes me as unrealistic, but also as an enemy of joyful, romantic and enduring marriages. Through this means the Church can destroy opportunities for spontaneous romance in the marriage bed or burden the couple with unnecssary guilt when they violate the church teaching.

 

[PJM]

=followingtheway;9247082]If I disagree with priestly-celibacy and an all-male priesthood. Would that be considered heresy? And be straight up with me, please.

Yes it is.

The Late Pope John Paul II explained that "the Church is not saying She “will Not” ordain women; rather She [the Church] is saying: “She CANNOT Ordain Women”

He gives three very solid reasons for this Teaching:

1. Ordination is a Sacrament Instituted by Jesus Christ Himself [John 20:19-23; Mt. 10:1-8; Mt. 28:16,18-19]. Becuase God Created the Sacrament Only God can void them.
2. a matter of physiology: the Key words of Consecration [Transubstanuation] are:
   “This Is MY Body”
   “This IS My Blood”
   “Do This In Memory of ME!”

EACH of these things in oder to happen Because Jesus is Male-gender; must too be accomplished by a male-gender person

1. Sacred tradition has always, everywhere, constantly and consistanly had ONLY male- Priest.

So please dont take it personally. it is god’s Will and Command.

God Bless,
Pat/PJM

 

[livingwordunity]

These arguments that marital relations with artificial birth control is somehow interfering with God’s will or selfish pleasure-seeking - these arguments fall flat.

 If it is interfering with God's will that the couple have a baby, then the church-approved method of birth control should also be viewed as interfering with God's will. Obviously, it's objective is the same, deliberately avoiding pregnancy.

 Now, as for selfish pleasure-seeking, or mutual masturbation as some even charge, this is really wild. Married couples express their love through marital relations. such occasions help bond the couple together, give one to the other, provide an atmosphere for expression of deep and deepening affection, and renew in a major sense the covenant of intimate marriage.

 To view such marital relations, using artificial birth control, as only a physical act is to rob it of all sorts of positive benefits. A celibate clergy may be tempted to see only the physical dimensions, but they aren't married men and women who look forward to demonstrating and deepening their love through the beauty and intimacy of sexual union.

  Actually, the sharp condemnation of birth control strikes me as unrealistic, but also as an enemy of joyful, romantic and enduring marriages. Through this means the Church can destroy opportunities for spontaneous romance in the marriage bed or burden the couple with unnecssary guilt when they violate the church teaching.

You have a hard time understanding why artificial birth control is wrong because you have bought into the modernist lie that we are smarter and wiser with today’s technology than anyone before. This is the arrogance of the modernist mindset. Prior to 1930 all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church that artificial contraception is immoral. It ironic that Protestants accuse the Catholic Church of changing her teachings when Protestant beliefs and doctrines change with every passing wind.

 

[Roy5]

Perhaps the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control in the past. I don’t know. Protestant churches generally did not ordain women, either. Many Protestants forbid drinking alcohol, smoking, even playing cards, movies and social dancing. Those were old concepts based on different times and different understandings. Most Protestant churches have changed.

 Take the Methodists. 100 or so years ago they were quite strict on most of these matters. Gradually they changed. As a rule, they still would discourage drinking and smoking - and gambling with cards - but they are much more liberal than they were. They have, for example, at least 10,000 ordained women clergy in the USA. They have been battling this month down in Tampa over how to view homosexuality and, I believe, have voted (again) against the ordination of practicings homosexuals, etc. Not easy issues with which to wrestle. Should gays be killed? That's clearly what the Bible says. Lev. 20:13"They must be put to death." We don;t believe that these days, do we? This shows that the Bible cannot be taken literally. It was written in another era when witches also were to killed as well as all who worshiped anyone but Jehovah (see Ex. 22:20).

  Churches often need to change because the world changes. The Church needs to change in the arena of birth control - for example. Or, in the arena of clergy celibacy. I also think that women should be ordained as Deacons. They already are Eucharistic ministers, girls are altar servers, etc. - major changes since I was young. Much else has changed within Catholicism such as attending baptisms, weddings and funerals in Protestant churches. That was once viewed as a serious sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control in the past. I don’t know. Protestant churches generally did not ordain women, either. Many Protestants forbid drinking alcohol, smoking, even playing cards, movies and social dancing. Those were old concepts based on different times and different understandings. Most Protestant churches have changed.

 Take the Methodists. 100 or so years ago they were quite strict on most of these matters. Gradually they changed. As a rule, they still would discourage drinking and smoking - and gambling with cards - but they are much more liberal than they were. They have, for example, at least 10,000 ordained women clergy in the USA. They have been battling this month down in Tampa over how to view homosexuality and, I believe, have voted (again) against the ordination of practicings homosexuals, etc. Not easy issues with which to wrestle. Should gays be killed? That's clearly what the Bible says. Lev. 20:13"They must be put to death." We don;t believe that these days, do we? This shows that the Bible cannot be taken literally. It was written in another era when witches also were to killed as well as all who worshiped anyone but Jehovah (see Ex. 22:20).

  Churches often need to change because the world changes. The Church needs to change in the arena of birth control - for example. Or, in the arena of clergy celibacy. I also think that women should be ordained as Deacons. They already are Eucharistic ministers, girls are altar servers, etc. - major changes since I was young. Much else has changed within Catholicism such as attending baptisms, weddings and funerals in Protestant churches. That was once viewed as a serious sin.

Roy, Roy, Roy.

You need to read your C.S. Lewis (he’s a protestant, you know). The last thing the Church should do is change because the world changes. Don’t you know your Scripture? Read John! Read the ECFs! Christians live in the world but are not to be OF the world.

Your ideas would have led to the early Christians saying to the Romans, “Well, sure, we’ll bow down to Nero. Heck, we don’t want to disrupt things. We understand the world is changing and since we all know that it’s just to keep society stable and not offend others who don’t share our beliefs, and since we can run off to confession afterward and get forgiven, we’ll all just bow down to good old Nero. Then YOU don’t have to kill us for professing our faith, WE don’t have to stand up and proclaim that Jesus is Lord, not Nero, and we’ll all be perfectly happy in our diversity.”

 

[manualman]

Manualman

1. Yes, I’m well aware of the difference between matters of doctrine and discipline. However, to the average parishioner of my generation one carried as much weight as the other - trangressing either was seen as a serious sin - so when the discipline was changed that seemed like ‘sin’ had changed. …

2 … an issue as artificial birth control. As I understand it that involves doctrine rather than discipline. Apparently the ordination of women is a doctrinal matter, too? Marriage of clergy is a matter of discipline. Etc. But it’s easy to confuse the two.

3. Obviously, the underlying issue is one of church authority. When Pius IX declared the Pope’s infallibility when speaking ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals - a dogma not defined explicitly until 1870 - is that to be treated as infallible? The Church would say yes! Ditto for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not defined until 1864. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox would disagree, of course. By the way, I happened to be in Rome (my student days) in 1950 when the Assumption was defined as a dogma.

4. I have come to the conclusion over the years that individual conscience plus reason should be permitted to play a key role as well. …

1. Just my thoughts. But millions of Catholics have similar ones, and millions have left the Church or become cafeteria Catholics because of it. Does the Church care? Apparently many here on CAF don’t. Their privilege.

God bless everybody.

1. I believe that this is precisely the problem Vatican II sought to change. Sadly, it appears that the message was twisted by some from “Doctrine and Discipline are both infallible and you shall do as I say” to “Neither Doctrine nor Discipline are infallible, so do what you feel like.” Hardly an improvement to swing from one erroneous extreme to the other, I’d say.
2. Yes, it is easy to confuse the two, especially if your formation revolved around obedience as a REPLACEMENT for comprehension instead of as a form of self discipline that enhanced one’s character, but did not replace the need for learning and comprehension.
3. Yes, it really does come down to authority, doesn’t it. Is it reasonable to believe that God created man good, watched as man fell into sin, loved us enough to become incarnate as a human, be tortured and killed by us, rise from the dead and proclaim His forgiveness and ongoing love for us, then proceed to say “See you in a few thousand years, good luck figuring all this out” and ascend into heaven? Is that your position? God loves us dearly, but wishes for us to CHOOSE Him, not be coerced into obedience. So He gives us clear teaching on matters of faith and morals, and allows us to choose to accept it or not. And in so doing, we accept HIM or not.
4. Well, yes of course. It plays a clear role in helping us to apply the principles that have been revealed to us. But it can never be used as a rationalization to act in defiance of what has been revealed to us. Please don’t pretend that the Church has published a manual of life that dictates every decision, action and issue. You know better.
5. Yes, millions of catholics followed Arias too. No thanks.

 

[Roy5]

Okay. Now for my real heresy. I revere Christ as my Lord and Sovereign. He revealed to us God the Father, full of love, quick to forgive, and not the wrathful Jehovah who ordered the mercifless killing of whole tribes and cities in the Old Testament, demanded that homosexuals be slaughtered, even repented that he made humankind, then drowned all but eight adults (yes, even innocent children) in the great flood.

** I **B]also have serious (and troubling to me) questions about the traditional vicarious sacriifice saga. Would the wrath of God be satisfied only by a human sacrifice, the torment and crucifixion of his only Son? Hm! That strikes me a primeval, like some pagan myth, but is it really Christian? I see Christ as a powerful symbol and reminder that many good people suffer and have suffered horrendously, sometimes innocents slain in ruthless warfare, sometimes the whipped and enslaved for their entire lives through, sometimes those sent to labor camps to die in Siberia or incinerated in Nazi gas chambers, sometimes ones crippled at birth or by some agonizing disease or condition, sometimes simply victims of extreme deprivation. The difference was that Christ would suffer physical pain for a short time and then rise and rule as the Supreme Lord in the celestial domain forever and ever, worshiped, indeed, by billions.

 **There is something about that scenario that bothers me.** It seems to me that God could have selected a different path to salvation. Condemning his own son to death (which it seems he did)? Actually, I think he laid out another pathway. When he was asked by a lawyer how to gain life eternal, he didn't answer by citing belief or dogma or church affiliation. He said to love God and one another, then illustrated it with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

** My own Christian faith and hope and love hinges on two commandments** - love God and one another - and not on theology that developed over the years or official doctrine that eventually was crystallized into the dogma of any church.
**But for those who can accept all the ancient traditions of the Church, God bless you.** If they provide courage and hope and comfort, fine. Stick with them. This vast universe is not we easy to understand, and we are like ants trying to describe a piano. I am sympathetic to efforts to explain it all. However, when this is accompanied by arrogance, condescension, and/or bigotry I must take exception.

 

[PJM]

=Roy5;9267024]Perhaps the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control in the past. I don’t know. Protestant churches generally did not ordain women, either. Many Protestants forbid drinking alcohol, smoking, even playing cards, movies and social dancing. Those were old concepts based on different times and different understandings. Most Protestant churches have changed.

 Take the Methodists. 100 or so years ago they were quite strict on most of these matters. Gradually they changed. As a rule, they still would discourage drinking and smoking - and gambling with cards - but they are much more liberal than they were. They have, for example, at least 10,000 ordained women clergy in the USA. They have been battling this month down in Tampa over how to view homosexuality and, I believe, have voted (again) against the ordination of practicings homosexuals, etc. Not easy issues with which to wrestle. Should gays be killed? That's clearly what the Bible says. Lev. 20:13"They must be put to death." We don;t believe that these days, do we? This shows that the Bible cannot be taken literally. It was written in another era when witches also were to killed as well as all who worshiped anyone but Jehovah (see Ex. 22:20).

  Churches often need to change because the world changes. The Church needs to change in the arena of birth control - for example. Or, in the arena of clergy celibacy. I also think that women should be ordained as Deacons. They already are Eucharistic ministers, girls are altar servers, etc. - major changes since I was young. Much else has changed within Catholicism such as attending baptisms, weddings and funerals in Protestant churches. That was once viewed as a serious sin.

Hi Roy;

Actually IMO, churhces need NOT change because GOD does not. What God taught 2,000 years ago is STILL taught by today’s CC. And that is as God Himself Ordained and Commanded.

Mal.3: 6 “For I the LORD do not change”

Sadly “MEISM” has largly repalced Theism. And actions Do have consequences. Practice of our faith does NOT revolve around how we “feel” about this or that. It ought to be what God Teaches; God Commands and God Wills. Amen?

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

 

[may_by_the_bay]

Question- is it heresy when you don’t agree with something the church teaches or think it’s right, but you keep this opinion silent and follow the matter anyway?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Okay. Now for my real heresy. I revere Christ as my Lord and Sovereign. He revealed to us God the Father, full of love, quick to forgive, and not the wrathful Jehovah who ordered the mercifless killing of whole tribes and cities in the Old Testament, demanded that homosexuals be slaughtered, even repented that he made humankind, then drowned all but eight adults (yes, even innocent children) in the great flood.

** I **B]also have serious (and troubling to me) questions about the traditional vicarious sacriifice saga.

Would the wrath of God be satisfied only by a human sacrifice, the torment and crucifixion of his only Son? Hm! That strikes me a primeval, like some pagan myth, but is it really Christian? I see Christ as a powerful symbol and reminder that many good people suffer and have suffered horrendously, sometimes innocents slain in ruthless warfare, sometimes the whipped and enslaved for their entire lives through, sometimes those sent to labor camps to die in Siberia or incinerated in Nazi gas chambers, sometimes ones crippled at birth or by some agonizing disease or condition, sometimes simply victims of extreme deprivation. The difference was that Christ would suffer physical pain for a short time and then rise and rule as the Supreme Lord in the celestial domain forever and ever, worshiped, indeed, by billions.

 **There is something about that scenario that bothers me.** It seems to me that God could have selected a different path to salvation. Condemning his own son to death (which it seems he did)? Actually, I think he laid out another pathway. When he was asked by a lawyer how to gain life eternal, he didn't answer by citing belief or dogma or church affiliation. He said to love God and one another, then illustrated it with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

** My own Christian faith and hope and love hinges on two commandments** - love God and one another - and not on theology that developed over the years or official doctrine that eventually was crystallized into the dogma of any church.

  **But for those who can accept all the ancient traditions of the Church, God bless you.** If they provide courage and hope and comfort, fine. Stick with them. This vast universe is not we easy to understand, and we are like ants trying to describe a piano. I am sympathetic to efforts to explain it all. However, when this is accompanied by arrogance, condescension, and/or bigotry I must take exception.

Wow. Are you really saying that God didn’t need to send Jesus to die for our sins? Or maybe he really didn’t send Jesus to die for us?

 

[shocktrooper]

Thanks…
But I cannot find, in any of the four gospels, where Jesus said at that last passover meal–as per your reference-- that only men were to be priests. I see him giving out bread and wine, yes. But I don’t see him even telling the other men eating with him that they would be priests.
So…to repeat my question…because the earlier poster said “it is written” in God’s words that women should not be priests…where exactly is it written?
Are you saying Jesus didn’t say it?
Was it said or decided by someone else rather than Jesus?
And it wasn’t “written” until 1994 via the pope, as per your quote above? (I assume it was first written earlier than that?)

I’m not saying it’s not written somewhere…but I just want to know where so I can see and read it, 'cause I cannot find it.

Please read the Book of Leviticus (written Word of God) and study the parallels between the Levitical Priesthood and that of Christ’s. You will be amazed what you learn.

God bless!

 

[PJM]

=may by the bay;9268965]Question- is it heresy when you don’t agree with something the church teaches or think it’s right, but you keep this opinion silent and follow the matter anyway?

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

From the current CODE of canon Law; I pray this answers your question.

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[manualman]

**… **Would the wrath of God be satisfied only by a human sacrifice, the torment and crucifixion of his only Son? Hm! That strikes me a primeval, like some pagan myth, but is it really Christian? …

Sometimes there is a fine line between heresy and insight. You seem to be ready to reject the interpretation that protestants traditionally put on Augustine’s writings about Christ’s role as the sacrificial lamb who takes away our sins. Don’t assume that is also a rejection of catholic teaching.

But again, don’t throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater! I tend to agree with your objection that God is hardly a cosmic retribution robot programmed to smite all rule breakers and can only avoid doing so if He smites himself instead as a loophole through which to save us. But step back and look at the larger picture.

Are you a father? Did you love your kids by allowing them to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted and just forgive and forget whatever they did wrong? I suspect not. As a loving father, you want your kids to grow up as good and healthy people who have compassion and know right from wrong. Did you not do your best to teach your kids right from wrong by teaching them about the inherently disasterous consequences of doing wrong? Did you not use their mistakes to teach them principles?

IMO, that’s what the Incarnation really was about. As sinful human beings, we are so fallen that when God became human and walked among us, our response to his perfection was to murder Him. THAT is the natural outcome of sin. THAT is why we need to repent. That is why we need salvation. Christ came and accepted not just the legal need God had to punish somebody for sins done, but accepted the consequences that came out of ALL our sins. He did it to shock us to our cores by the greatness of His love for us, in spite of our heinous sinfulness. When Christ rose from the dead, it meant that we, too, have the hope of rising from the death we spread with our sinfulness.

But just like with raising your kids, we humans need to learn to comprehend the damage we do when we sin. YOU don’t just let your kids figure it all out on their own do you? Are you a better father than God? If the ONLY infallible guide we have is our feelings on any given matter, then Jesus wasted his time on us. After all, we had that BEFORE he came, no? He came to demonstrate His love for us, He came to teach us what love really is and he came to give us the Church as the fountain of grace and revelation flowing out through all the world.

I have a hard time understanding how it is arrogant to trust that God has revealed his will through the teachings of the Church he placed here and thus surrender my will to that revelation, but it is humble and loving to proclaim one’s own conscience superior to that revelation??? Seems a bit backwards to me…

 

[Abu]

Roy5 #50
My own Christian faith and hope and love hinges on two commandments - love God and one another - and not on theology that developed over the years or official doctrine that eventually was crystallized into the dogma of any church.

Well the sooner you do listen to Christ Himself, and reflect on His teaching, the sooner will you see the spotlessness of His Church in Her dogma and doctrine, Her Eucharistic Sacrifice, Her sacraments and how Her saints lived.

Do you not know how the Christ spoke to His own Apostles? To His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

So the concern for you is – what are you doing to know Christ’s teaching, to offer it to others and to live it?

The infatuation with what you fantasise as “theology” is a misplaced rejection of the Son of God, and selectively choosing two Commandments while neglecting what Christ taught as to how to love and how to live – “If you love Me, keep My Commandments.” (Jn 14:15).

Did He give you His teaching, personally? No, only through His Church which gave you the Sacred Scriptures, without which you would have no idea of what Jesus said and taught.

And this is how He commanded we follow His Church – it’s in Her Scriptures:
Christ wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

 

[Abu]

may by the bay #52
Question- is it heresy when you don’t agree with something the church teaches or think it’s right, but you keep this opinion silent and follow the matter anyway?

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary
“In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

“Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)”

What is the real problem?

 

[shocktrooper]

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/03/clerical-continence-requirement-for.html

This link speaks about priestly celibacy for both single and married priests. It is very interesting.

 

[PJM]

Roy5 #50
My own Christian faith and hope and love hinges on two commandments - love God and one another - and not on theology that developed over the years or official doctrine that eventually was crystallized into the dogma of any church

.

Ahhh, But dear friend does your way AGREE with God’s Way?

Who’s in charge you or God?

If God wished to give ONLY TWO Commandments; would not He; Perfect; All Knowing; All Wise; All just and Fair not have done ONLY that.

On what basis; what foundation do you claim authority to “pick and choose”? “MEISM” is dominate these day’s at GREAT cost to Theism! AMEN!

Matt. 16:19 in speaking about “binding and loosining” is speaking First and directly to unlimited powers of Governance of Christ New: 1 God; 1 set of Faith beliefs and 1 Church to which ONLY Peter and successors have the “KEY’S”

**Matt. 28: 16-20 **" Now the eleven disciples [APOSTLES] went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. … ***And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ***[AND I NOW GIVE IT TO YOU] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, [Thus in an absolute sense requireing Succession] baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, **teaching them to observe all that I have commanded **you; [Notably Singular] and lo, **I am with you always, to the close of the age.” ** To Guide, Guard, Protect and Personally warrant your Teaching Truth: Jn.14:16-17; jn. 17:15-19 and Jn. 20:19-22]

Your position leads to a place you don’t wish to be.

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

 

[livingwordunity]

Perhaps the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control in the past. I don’t know.

They did. This is a fact. Protestants changed their teachings and condemn the Catholic Church for not changing. Protestantism is a mixed bag of heresies that include (but are not limited to) individualism, relativism, and modernism. I think these are the big three.

 

[Roy5]

It appears that when someone takes issue with church teachings, they are assailed as putting their opinion before the revelation of God. This is criticized as gross egotism.

 Quite the contrary. Many Catholics and others may accept their faith generally, but disagree with this or that. This has little to do with ego. It has a lot to do with honesty. It has a lot to do with conscience. It has a lot to do with research and reason. One weakness of traditional Catholicism is the claim that it alone teaches the truth and all others religions are false, or at least seriously lacking. 

  Which is more egotistical? Recognizing that there is much that we don't know, that this fabulous universe is beyond our finite understanding, having doubts. Or, on the other hand, claiming that 'my church' alone has the truth and the rest are all heretical to a greater or lesser extent?  

  My struggle with Catholicism always has been that I feel the need to search and study and discover, not simply believe what I have been told I must believe. I like to exercise the freedom to explore the enormous mysteries of theology and metaphyics and feel less than free when the Church seems to say that I shouldn't do that, that I should jusr accept what the Church teaches.

  Don't any of you feel similarly? I'm sure God appreciates the pilgrim who respects the views of others as long as they place Him and the gospel of love at the center of their lives.