Can a heretic be invincibly ignorant and saved - Martin Luther?

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t understand why you assume all abused people who walk away from the Church reject infallible teachings. What do you have to support that claim?

Can you point exactly to where I stated “all.” Please read more carefully and don’t assume.

Some do; not all. And Luther is such an example.

BTW, all (yes, all) Lutherans I’ve ever met, which include family members, are well aware of the Catholic Church positions on dogma and reject it anyway.

 

[thistle]

Can you point exactly to where I stated “all.” Please read more carefully and don’t assume.

Some do; not all. And Luther is such an example.

BTW, all (yes, all) Lutherans I’ve ever met, which include family members, are well aware of the Catholic Church positions on dogma and reject it anyway.

Okay then what percentage of abused persons who have walked away from the Church have you contacted and asked if they did so because they reject any infallible teachings?

I have to repeat this again. Heresy only applies to Catholics and it only applies to Catholics who reject infallible teachings, not non-infallible teachings.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Okay then what percentage of abused persons who have walked away from the Church have you contacted and asked if they did so because they reject any infallible teachings?

Where did you get this assumption? You’re obviously not reading what I post. Many walk away and simply reject everything the Church stands for: Papal authority (and not just that, but often have hatred directed toward him), wholesale rejection of Church authority in general, wholesale rejection of teaching, etc. BTW, I doesn’t end their either. It causes others that have witnessed this to walk away also.

It may be different where you are, because unlike you, I like in a Protestant majority where people are more free to leave their religion without consequences.

 

[thistle]

Where did you get this assumption? You’re obviously not reading what I post. Many walk away and simply reject everything the Church stands for: Papal authority (and not just that, but often have hatred directed toward him), wholesale rejection of Church authority in general, wholesale rejection of teaching, etc. BTW, I doesn’t end their either. It causes others that have witnessed this to walk away also.

It may be different where you are, because unlike you, I like in a Protestant majority where people are more free to leave their religion without consequences.

As I asked already what do you have to support your claim that abused people walk away from the Church because they reject infallible teachings and not just because of the horrendous tragedy that happened to them. It does not follow that the latter means the former.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It does not follow that the latter means the former.

Once again, do you read what I post? Did I state this. If so, cite it.

It is true that more than a few people do not embrace their abuser. Some obviously have Stockholm Syndrome. However, many direct venom at their abuser, and utterly reject anything about them.

Many people put up with Church abuse. Many also do not, and some have gone so far to cut themselves off from the Church because of the abuse. Simple human nature…

 

[thistle]

Once again, do you read what I post? Did I state this. If so, cite it.

It is true that more than a few people do not embrace their abuser. Some obviously have Stockholm Syndrome. However, many direct venom at their abuser, and utterly reject anything about them.

Many people put up with Church abuse. Many also do not, and some have gone so far to cut themselves off from the Church because of the abuse. Simple human nature…

You posted this:

"How about all of the Catholic children abused by priests that leave the Church? Would you be willing to label them heretics also? "

YOU are the one who brought abused children into the thread after it was stated that heresy applied to Catholics who reject infallible teachings. It can mean nothing else than they left because they rejected infallible teachings and that was the subsequent thrust of your other posts.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It can mean nothing else than they left because they rejected infallible teachings and that was the subsequent thrust of your other posts.

They left because they were abused. Luther left because of blatant abuses by the Church. The rejection came AFTER they were abused. Cause and effect.

 

[thistle]

They left because they were abused. Luther left because of blatant abuses by the Church. The rejection came AFTER they were abused. Cause and effect.

Apples and oranges.
Abused children left the Church because they were abused and not because they rejected infallible teachings (unless you have interviewed them and know differently).
Luther left the Church because he rejected infallible teachings.
By the way what blatant abuses were there that Luther did not like. I hope you won’t make the mistake of thinking the Church sold indulgences because it not.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Abused children left the Church because they were abused and not because they rejected infallible teachings (unless you have interviewed them and know differently).

Unfortunately, I know child abuse victims. Even though I am anonymous on this forum, I am sworn to secrecy and cannot discuss the matter further.

Luther left the Church because he rejected infallible teachings. By the way what blatant abuses were there that Luther did not like. I hope you won’t make the mistake of thinking the Church sold indulgences because it not.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. However, I’m not one to dismiss historic documents on the matter.

 

[thistle]

Unfortunately, I know child abuse victims. Even though I am anonymous on this forum, I am sworn to secrecy and cannot discuss the matter further.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. However, I’m not one to dismiss historic documents on the matter.

Historical documents do not show the Church was selling indulgences. There is a huge difference between the Church doing something and what some corrupt priests/bishops might have done. The two are not the same.

 

[JerryZ]

Unfortunately, I know child abuse victims. Even though I am anonymous on this forum, I am sworn to secrecy and cannot discuss the matter further.

You are entitled to your opinion on the matter. However, I’m not one to dismiss historic documents on the matter.

Are you saying, that Luther was abused by a priest when he was young?
If you could quote or point us in the direction of these “historic documents” you mention which we are apparently dismissing, perhaps we can all learn something new here.

–

 

[Kamaz]

Lets be open minded as we look to answer this concept of heresy.

According to the online dictionary, I liked this definition; “an opinion or doctrine contrary to the orthodox tenets of a religious body or church”

As Christians, we follow the tenets of Jesus and the apostles. Anything contrary to that belief is a deviation from the christian teaching and therefore will be termed as HERESY!

Now lets see the types of deviation that would be rightly considered as heresy.

1. Any NEW popular or unpopular teaching that is contrary to the original belief.
2. Any addition to the original tenets that undermines the significance or supremacy of the original belief.
3. Any interpretation that when carefully interpreted totally an unacceptable to God.

Lets look at where we are, and check if we have moved from the original teaching of Christ?
Is praying through Mary part of the original apostolic teaching or is it a deviation?
Is calling Mary “mother of God” an original apostolic or Christ’s teaching?
Is the doctrine of purgatory part of Jesus teaching?.
Is baptism by sprinkling of water the original practice of the apostles of Jesus himself?
Is adoring the Eucharist part of Jesus intended practice during the last supper?

The questions are endless. And they just take us back to the question, “are we rightly heretic by believing thus”? Whether its a popular ‘belief’ to us, is it popular to God?

 

[JerryZ]

Seems you are trying to derail this thread questioning practices that have solid foundations since the beginning of the Church that was founded by Jesus.
Your questions arise out of novel and quite recent misunderstanding of the faith that Jesus and His apostles left us.
Read the Church Fathers. Those Bishops that KNEW the Apostles and were taught their faiths by them directly and you will get your answers to your misconceptions on all the points you raised.

–

 

[agnes_therese]

Not trying to be “funny” here, this is a serious question:

Why do you show your religion as Catholic when you’re obviously not?

Lets be open minded as we look to answer this concept of heresy.

According to the online dictionary, I liked this definition; “an opinion or doctrine contrary to the orthodox tenets of a religious body or church”

As Christians, we follow the tenets of Jesus and the apostles. Anything contrary to that belief is a deviation from the christian teaching and therefore will be termed as HERESY!

Now lets see the types of deviation that would be rightly considered as heresy.

1. Any NEW popular or unpopular teaching that is contrary to the original belief.
2. Any addition to the original tenets that undermines the significance or supremacy of the original belief.
3. Any interpretation that when carefully interpreted totally an unacceptable to God.

Lets look at where we are, and check if we have moved from the original teaching of Christ?
Is praying through Mary part of the original apostolic teaching or is it a deviation?
Is calling Mary “mother of God” an original apostolic or Christ’s teaching?
Is the doctrine of purgatory part of Jesus teaching?.
Is baptism by sprinkling of water the original practice of the apostles of Jesus himself?
Is adoring the Eucharist part of Jesus intended practice during the last supper?

The questions are endless. And they just take us back to the question, “are we rightly heretic by believing thus”? Whether its a popular ‘belief’ to us, is it popular to God?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Historical documents do not show the Church was selling indulgences.

You’re kidding, correct?

There is a huge difference between the Church doing something and what some corrupt priests/bishops might have done. The two are not the same.

I understand the difference. However, when corrupt behavior becomes the norm for the local/regional representatives of the Church, it reflects on the Church itself (rightly or wrongly).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I should also add the Luther didn’t live in the time of iPhones and internet. Information traveled very slow, and the information that arrived was often limited in nature. Oftentimes, the local representatives were the only contact the people ever had with the Church. Nowadays, one can just cross check information on the Vatican website. The local representatives, correctly or incorrectly, were the face of the Church for the vast majority of people; what happened in Rome was often unknown to the locals.