Condemnation of fellow Christians

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

The Church does not condemn UniChristian – no one born outside the Catholic Church is condemned or charged with heresy, no matter what their religion.

And ALL religions must – by implication at least – hold that what they teach is true, and that any other religion which teaches differently is by definition heretical.

In other words, if the Catholics refer to, say Methodism as heretical, the Methodists at least by implication say the same about the Catholics.

That, would depend upon the ecclesiologies of the churches involved - Methodists may think Catholics are mistaken; it doesn’t follow that they would regard us as “heretics”.​

Besides, simply being a non-Catholic Christian does not make one a heretic. There is no heresy where there is no objective and subjective moral responsibility - or, in more detail, where there is no deliberate and persevering rejection of what one knows is God’s truth. A Methodist, say, who has never been familiar with belief in the Catholic dogmas about the Pope, is not rejecting something he has previously accepted as parts of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. So, he can’t be a heretic for denying the primacy of the Pope, for example. (Doubt is not heresy either.)

I think Catholics are far too ready to throw around accusations of heresy - without knowing someone, ISTM that the most we can say of that someone, is that such a person does not share the same doctrinal outlook as we do.

FWIW, heresy is an error in doctrine; but not all doctrinal errors are heretical. A broken leg is an injury; but not all injuries are broken legs. The two categories of “heresy” and “error” overlap, but are not co-extensive. If people realised this, there might be an end of describing every single supposed or real deviation from Catholic dogma as heresy. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mercygate:

As a former Anglican, I would say: WHOLE 'nother thread!

Perhaps in another forum, too ?​

 

[jphilapy]

Gottle of Geer:

There is no heresy where there is no objective and subjective moral responsibility - or, in more detail, where there is no deliberate and persevering rejection of what one knows is God’s truth. A Methodist, say, who has never been familiar with belief in the Catholic dogmas about the Pope, is not rejecting something he has previously accepted as parts of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. So, he can’t be a heretic for denying the primacy of the Pope, for example. (Doubt is not heresy either.)

I can say one thing, the definition of heresy is much more complicated then a simple understanding and the issue of V2s recognition of grace outside of RC seems very fuzzy.

Anyway here is what newadvent.org has to say of heresy:

" The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”. "

So it appears to me that the RC considers a heretic anyone who does not hold to all the tenants of the RC teaching and who is not considered a schismatic (one who is part of the RC but rebels).

Now regarding V2 I think it is fuzzy.

For example these statements were posted by another user on this forum, see post #119

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

So basically saying you don’t have to be RC to be saved. However another quote says:

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

Saying that unless you accept all of RC you are not incorporated into the church, or you are not the church.

If you have the Spirit of God, then you are sons of God, sons of Abraham, circumcised in heart, reborn, and you are His temple that He dwells in. So there is a contradiction here. The RC says you can be saved by having His Spirit in you even if you have not come to accept all that they teach. However scripture teaches that you cannot be saved unless you belong completely to Jesus.

How can you belong to Jesus and have His Spirit dwelling in you but not be the Church?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

## That, would depend upon the ecclesiologies of the churches involved - Methodists may think Catholics are mistaken; it doesn’t follow that they would regard us as “heretics”.

When you dispute a basic issue of doctrine, that automatically makes the people on the other side heretics, whether you CALL them that or not. In the Catholic view, separation from the Catholic Church is a heresy – see Paragraph 818 of the CCC, below.

## Besides, simply being a non-Catholic Christian does not make one a heretic.

No one – especially the Catholic Church - -says it does. From the Catechism:
[818](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/818.htm’) "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
Gottle of Geer:

I think Catholics are far too ready to throw around accusations of heresy - without knowing someone, ISTM that the most we can say of that someone, is that such a person does not share the same doctrinal outlook as we do.

As paragraph 818 of the Catechism, quoted above shows, we do not “throw around accusations of heresy.” We recognize that separation from the Catholic Church is a heresy, but do not charge those brought up in non-Catholic Christian traditions with heresy.

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

As paragraph 818 of the Catechism, quoted above shows, we do not “throw around accusations of heresy.” We recognize that separation from the Catholic Church is a heresy, but do not charge those brought up in non-Catholic Christian traditions with heresy.

Well that is what it says but that doesn’t stop people from doing it.
Jeff

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

so i think that is enough about me

Jeff:

Remember that I’m an Anglican, according to the church, I’m a Schismatic, and possibly a Heretic.

Congratulations on being clean and sober. I know that has to be the Grace of G-d working in you. Remember, God wll give you the grace to remain clean and sober only so long as you willfully obey and follow Him. Some of that will be a matter for you to discern in prayer, study and question.

As MercyGate said, there are three in the room when we go to Confession. I went myself after an absence of nearly 24 years, and the amount of garbage that was removed was incredible.

Karl Jung claimed that if all Catholics went to regular Confession, and did exactly what their confessors and Spiritual Directors told them to do, that Analysts would go bankrupt for lack of patients. That’s how strong the Grace confered in that Sacrament is.

The Eucharist confers an equally, if not more powerful, grace, because, according to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church, I’m receiving the Body and Blood of my Savior, and because Jesus promised he would be there in that form.

Matt: 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 22-24; Luke 22:19-20; John 6: 35-60; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-32.

That’s not to say that God can’t give you grace while you pray, meet with other Christians and read your Bible. It’s only to say that I KNOW that God will give the the grace if I come to Him in obedience to His commandments.

Remember, the Church doesn’t believe in either “Solo Fides” or “Solo Scriptura”. Regarding the first, I ask you to consider the following: James 2: 14-26; Philippians 2: 12-17; and the Term “Works of the Law” was the precise RABBINICAL Term for the acts required by the Torah - Circumcision, Animal Sacrifice, Keeping Kosher, Sabbath Observance, etc. which the Council of Jerusalem said didn’t have to be done anymore by Gentile Converts to Christianity. Paul wasn’t telling Christians that they didn’t have to be decent people and strive to behave in a manner consistent with the faith they had received, in fact, far form it. Romans 6: 1-23.

You’ll notice that the scriptures and Tradition of the Church still make clear the obligation to behave in a manner worthy of the Kingdom of God: Matt. 25: 31-46.

And for “Sola Scriptura”, please remember that the Church didn’t even recognize the list of the Books we recognize today as canonical until over 350 years after he died. So, for 350 years, Christians relied on the Old Testament and the Traditions and books they had received from the Apostles.

Even Protestants accept the Nicene Creed as infallable:
sacred-texts.com/chr/nicene.htm

And many do the same for the Athanasian Creed and the Apostles Creed:
catholictradition.org/creeds.htm

(Only the one at the end of this URL, from the Council of Trent, would elicit debate from Protestants)

Peace and Grace be with you, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

Congratulations on being clean and sober. I know that has to be the Grace of G-d working in you. Remember, God wll give you the grace to remain clean and sober only so long as you willfully obey and follow Him. Some of that will be a matter for you to discern in prayer, study and question.

Thanks Mike. I have to say I feel much more comfortable here now that we had the exchange and a few people have been willing to be kind and explain their ideas. Of course I can understand others here would feel uncomfortable because they always getting attacked by shallow one track minded arguements by people who don’t care to consider all points.

I do believe truth will prevail if we just give it a chance to speak and we listen.

Regarding your comment about “Sola-Fide”. There is an interesting story behind that. First of all when Martin Luther taught that it was by faith alone, he didn’t mean that there were not to be works. When he first stated that teaching, he had to correct himself later to make it more full. At first he taught by faith alone. But then he corrected himself and begin to teach that it was by faith alone, but if it was true faith then it produced obedience. I don’t believe Martin Luther had any bad intentions or was against Christ in anyway. I just think the catholic church was having some problems and when you have sin, it effects all.

Anyway Martin Luther believed in obedience. So did Calvin. Accept Calvin taught that if you were the elect you would obey. If you didn’t obey then you probably not the elect, or you not yet.

But later on these teaching changed. So now many protestants holding to Luther teach that works do not matter because it is really by faith alone. And many people holding to Calvinists think works do not matter because they have eternal security.

So anyway I believe that Faith must produce works. But I think where I am different than the RC, is on what those works must be. I am not sure what all the RC defines as works here, but I define works as to be works of Love and righteousness. I limit works to morality basically. But I think the RC goes beyond that. I don’t know.

Jeff

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

I am curious, what is the relationship the Anglican church has to the RC? How does the RC view them? I guess I am a little confused because Anglican apparently is considered protestant yet they maintain apostolic succession. Does the RC recognize this? Does the Anglican church recognize the RC?

Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff:

The Catholic Church requires that for there to be Valid Apostolic Succession, that the Succession in question have always had the intent to be BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS according to the ancient orders of the Church.

In the 17th Century, the Anglican Church DROPPED this langueage and said, “Arrise, Minister of Christ.” Instead of, “Arrise, Priest of the Holy Catholic church.” This means, at least for those who signed on and used this language, that there was NO intent to maintain the Apostolic Succession.

There were NON-JURERS who refused to use the Protestant (Puritan) language, and there are others who have sought ordination and consecration through bodies recognized by the Vatican (such as the Polish National Catholic Church).

As some of you know, the Episcopal Church in this country has recently defied both Scripture and Tradition in Ordaining and Consecrating woman Priests and Bishops as well as avowed practicing Gay Priests and even a Bishop who left his wife and young children to live with his gay lover. This has caused a lot of congregations to leave the Episcopal (and Anglican) Church with many looking for a place to land.

The Pope has decided to create Anglican Use Parishes, and Vatican has been trying very hard to verify the validity of the orders of Priests (and sometimes Bishops) in the hopes that local ordinaries would not have to force too many of the Priests to undergo “conditional ordination”.

I understand the Vatican’s researchers/detectives are quite good at ferreting this stuff out.

Please pray for the parishes and dioceses that are looking for a place to land.

I hope this clears the issue up.

In him, Michael

 

[mercygate]

Traditional Ang:

Vatican has been trying very hard to verify the validity of the orders of Priests (and sometimes Bishops) in the hopes that local ordinaries would not have to force too many of the Priests to undergo “conditional ordination”.

Good post, Michael. Actually, conditional ordination is good news for an Anglican coming to Rome. Most are ordained de novo “from scratch.” It is my understanding that they are no longer required to renounce their orders or their former church as they were in the past. My information is hearsay from several who have made the trip across the Tiber. I know of only two “conditional” ordinations. I do not know of any Anglican priests who did not have to be ordained because their orders were considered acceptable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Traditional Ang:

Jeff:

Remember that I’m an Anglican, according to the church, I’m a Schismatic, and possibly a Heretic.

No. Paragraph 818 of the Catechism specifically says you are not. You may not be in communion with the Catholic Church, but you cannot be charged with schism or heresy for following the tradition you were brought up in.
Traditional Ang:

As MercyGate said, there are three in the room when we go to Confession. I went myself after an absence of nearly 24 years, and the amount of garbage that was removed was incredible…

To paraphrase the gospel, man was not made for confession, but confession for man. Some protestants often ask, “Why do you have to confess to a priest?” The answer is, “Because WE need to.”
Traditional Ang:

Karl Jung claimed that if all Catholics went to regular Confession, and did exactly what their confessors and Spiritual Directors told them to do, that Analysts would go bankrupt for lack of patients. That’s how strong the Grace confered in that Sacrament is.

Absolutely – IF we all confessed regularly and sincerely, we’d have a lot less problems.
Traditional Ang:

And for “Sola Scriptura”, please remember that the Church didn’t even recognize the list of the Books we recognize today as canonical until over 350 years after he died. So, for 350 years, Christians relied on the Old Testament and the Traditions and books they had received from the Apostles.

Even Protestants accept the Nicene Creed as infallable:
sacred-texts.com/chr/nicene.htm

And many do the same for the Athanasian Creed and the Apostles Creed:
catholictradition.org/creeds.htm

(Only the one at the end of this URL, from the Council of Trent, would elicit debate from Protestants)

Peace and Grace be with you, Michael

I have a sincere Protestant friend who once said to mel, “We believe in the Trinity, but no one knows where that belief came from.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

mercygate:

Good post, Michael. Actually, conditional ordination is good news for an Anglican coming to Rome. Most are ordained de novo “from scratch.” It is my understanding that they are no longer required to renounce their orders or their former church as they were in the past. My information is hearsay from several who have made the trip across the Tiber. I know of only two “conditional” ordinations. I do not know of any Anglican priests who did not have to be ordained because their orders were considered acceptable.

Mercy:

The Vatican recently directed several dicoses to take in “Anglican Use Parishes”. So far, to the best of my knowledge, all the Priest have been Ordained conditionally.

I understand the Vatican is also looking at the possibility of taking in a LOT of parishes (and maybe a few dioceses) from the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) and the Worldwide Anglican Communion who are leaving ECUSA and the Communion or acting as they’re going to leave.

Most of these will probably go to one of the Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions, but many will still make it to the RC Church as “Anglican Use” Parishes and (possibly) Dioceses.

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

vern humphrey:

No. Paragraph 818 of the Catechism specifically says you are not. You may not be in communion with the Catholic Church, but you cannot be charged with schism or heresy for following the tradition you were brought up in.

Thanks, Vern,

At least that means I won’t be thrown off the board for being a heretic or a schismatic! LOL
vern humphrey:

To paraphrase the gospel, man was not made for confession, but confession for man. Some protestants often ask, “Why do you have to confess to a priest?” The answer is, “Because WE need to.”

Very, Very true.

I listened to a priest on EWTN say that his first confession ended with the priest looking at his watch and saying, “It’s 3 O’Clock. That’s the hour of mercy, because that’s the hour when Christ died for our sins.”

That was right after he came back to the Lord, and hadn’t been to Confession in over 20 years. He said the most wonderful words were, “I absolve you of you sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

I agree.
vern humphrey:

Absolutely – IF we all confessed regularly and sincerely, we’d have a lot less problems

IMO, that would be helped if the Confessor really listened and questioned our Confessions before pronouncing absolution.

For my other thoughts, see above.
vern humphrey:

I have a sincere Protestant friend who once said to mel, “We believe in the Trinity, but no one knows where that belief came from.”

Well, we do now.

You REALLY find out if you chant the Athanasian Creed in procession! LOL

May the Grace and Peace of Our Lord Jesus be with you, Michael