D
Drunken_Master
Guest
Alright, than let the question be asked; are John Paul II and Benedict XVI heretics?
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Oh, no, I’m no sedevacantist at all. I don’t believe JPII or BXVI was or is a heretic nor do I believe that they were leading or are leading the faithful amiss. It’s simply as Unitas has said: it’s the logical question to ask given your posts.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
You have to look pretty hard to see a “must embrace the fullness of the Catholic faith” there…it’s in there I guess, but not really in the context of it being a matter of eternal importance.
And seems there’s something missing…if we say we"must" embrace it…what does that really mean? Embrace it or else what? What happens if one doesn’t?
I can appreciate the effort here - sounds good, sort of - though it could also be read more like an attempt not to offend than to convert.
Regarding “not rejecting everything”…what is the point of making such a pained and elaborately worded effort to state something so obviously plain and simple? Of course not EVERYTHING is rejected and the Church has never said or taught such a notion! Such elaborate words and writings and “approaches” to defeat a non-existant enemy of conversion!
But some things must be rejected…the heresies…the false teachings…these must be rejected! A person can’t simply cling to these and embrace the One True Church at the same time. They MUST reject these and RETURN (convert) to the Truth!
I have trouble following Pope John Paul IIs writings…it is elaborately worded, but in the end, I struggle to find the profoundness of it all. He seems to state in hundreds of words what could be stated in one or two sentences. And then after plugging away through all the text, I’m always waiting for the “rest” of it…the warnings of what happens when one rejects this visible, hierarchical, One True Church established by Christ.
The “bad thing” that happens when one rejects the Church isn’t that they just will be “lacking full visible communion”…it’s “eternal damnation”. Serious business there. Which calls to mind this Scripture passage…*(Ezekiel 3:18-19) *"If I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I posted what I did because I think it is the way to refute the Sedevacantists. You are not going to win an argument with them by claiming that John Paul II was not a heretic. They have too much evidence for their position. They are usually rash in claiming that this or that quote, or this or that action, was formally heretical, but it does no good to argue the point with them, since they are conniced it was. Instead, I think it is best not to argue whether or not he was a heretic, but instead to show that even if he was, it does not necessarily mean he lost his office.
A Pope could loose his office by falling into heresy, but it must be manifest heresy, and I don’t think they can make their case for that. It is a subjective opinion (since the Pope did not willingly leave the Church), and therefore a very fangerous position, in my opinion.
In moral theology we are told to always take the safer course. Since we have no obligation to depose a Pope, the safer course for the Sedavacantist is simply to suspend judgment. We can all be mistaken, and if they are mistaken in this point, they could go to hell. It is an unnecessary risk. One that they simply do not need to take.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
It is my understanding (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that they are not heretics, as they do not deny any doctrines of the Church. However, mistakes in ecumenism were still made and great scandal was caused, and serious sins committed. Do these make them heretics? No. They’re humans, and as humans, sinners. Now that we have the German Shepherd we can hope for the Church to go in the right direction, even if he doesn’t take us all the way.
O
otjm
Guest
It might really help, in extract a quote to make a point, if the context of the quote were also given.
It is altogether too easy to extract one sentance or two from a statement and go “Aha! See the heresy?!” when in actual fact, the statement in context says something entirely different than what it is being put forth to show.
If we are going to take on JP 2, then let’s have the whole document, and the reasons for the document being issued; lets put not only one sentance but the whole document in context.
It is altogether too easy to extract one sentance or two from a statement and go “Aha! See the heresy?!” when in actual fact, the statement in context says something entirely different than what it is being put forth to show.
If we are going to take on JP 2, then let’s have the whole document, and the reasons for the document being issued; lets put not only one sentance but the whole document in context.
B
brigid12
Guest
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Which post are you responding to?
T
thecoach
Guest
“True Ecumenism seeks to bring non-Catholics into the Catholic Church through conversion.” Already off to an erroneous start. That would be called evangelism. I got this from catholicreference.net:
ECUMENISM
The modern movement toward Christian unity whose Protestant origins stem from the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910, and whose Catholic principles were formulated by the Second Vatican Council in 1964. These principles are mainly three: 1. Christ established the Church on the Apostles and their episcopal successors, whose visible head and principle of unity became Peter and his successor the Bishop of Rome; 2. since the first century there have been divisions in Christianity, but many persons now separated from visible unity with the successors of the Apostles under Peter are nevertheless Christians who possess more or less of the fullness of grace available in the Roman Catholic Church; 3. Catholics are to do everything possible to foster the ecumenical movement, which comprehends all “the initiatives and activities, planned and undertaken to promote Christian unity, according to the Church’s various needs and as opportunities offer” (Decree on Ecumenism, I, 4).
If we are going to define terms, let’s do so correctly.
ECUMENISM
The modern movement toward Christian unity whose Protestant origins stem from the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910, and whose Catholic principles were formulated by the Second Vatican Council in 1964. These principles are mainly three: 1. Christ established the Church on the Apostles and their episcopal successors, whose visible head and principle of unity became Peter and his successor the Bishop of Rome; 2. since the first century there have been divisions in Christianity, but many persons now separated from visible unity with the successors of the Apostles under Peter are nevertheless Christians who possess more or less of the fullness of grace available in the Roman Catholic Church; 3. Catholics are to do everything possible to foster the ecumenical movement, which comprehends all “the initiatives and activities, planned and undertaken to promote Christian unity, according to the Church’s various needs and as opportunities offer” (Decree on Ecumenism, I, 4).
If we are going to define terms, let’s do so correctly.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
So, in your opinion, is the goal of ecumenism to convert the Protestants, Orthodox, and others into the Roman Catholic Church?
O
otjm
Guest
The OP.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
Look to St Thomas For assistance with your queries:
Summa Theologica (Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundæ Partis)) or II-II:11:1
On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions]. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.
I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, 13, 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (4, 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.
Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. (The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920)
newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm
Hope this helps.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Good to know, then, that the popes aren’t heretics, isn’t it?Look to St Thomas For assistance with your queries:
Summa Theologica (Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundæ Partis)) or II-II:11:1
On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions]. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.
I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, 13, 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (4, 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.
Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. (The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920)
newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm
Hope this helps.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Very good to know, but they can still be wrong.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
You asked the question, I posted the Church Doctor’s answer. For the full text on heresy consult:
Summa Theologica Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundæ Partis)
Faith:
Question 11. Heresy
Articles 1-4
at this link:
newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm
It is quite easy to realize heresy, with these articles by the Saint and Brilliant Church Doctor St Thomas.
For example: Has it been said that Islam and Catholicism worship the same God? Islam denies both the Divinity of Yeshua and the Trinity.
Compare with Summa here (II-II:11:2)
(newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm)
I answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.
Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (I, 32, 4; I-II, 1, 6, ad 1; I-II, 2, 5), ***in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith. ***
Hope this also helps.
God Bless.
G
Genesis315
Guest
In traditional Catholic teaching, they do worship the same God. Since the one God can be discovered through natural means, those religions which acknowledge one supreme and omnipotent God, are said to have found Him, even if there knowledge of Him has many errors. They have never been classified as pagans or heathens.You asked the question, I posted the Church Doctor’s answer. For the full text on heresy consult:
Summa Theologica Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundæ Partis)
Faith:
Question 11. Heresy
Articles 1-4
at this link:
newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm
It is quite easy to realize heresy, with these articles by the Saint and Brilliant Church Doctor St Thomas.
For example: Has it been said that Islam and Catholicism worship the same God? Islam denies both the Divinity of Yeshua and the Trinity.
Compare with Summa here (II-II:11:2)
(newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm)
I answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.
Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (I, 32, 4; I-II, 1, 6, ad 1; I-II, 2, 5), ***in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith. ***
Hope this also helps.
God Bless.
St. Paul (Acts 17:23)“For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you.”
Pope St. Gregory VII (11th century) to a Muslim prince: ‘AlmightyGod, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’
Catechism of Pope St. Pius X : 12 Q. Who are infidels?
A. Infidels are those who have not been baptised and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
Catholic Encyclopedia: As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews and Mohammedans.
Also see this chapter on Islam in Hillair Belloc’s "Great Heresies."
ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
Second Vatican Council: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Church teaching on heresy has not changed. The obstinately denial of some article of faith is still heresy. The policy now, however, is not to pass rash judgment and assume someone who has never been Catholic is obstinate in their heresy.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
I have a question: Regarding those who lived during the Old Testament who worshipped the god they called Baal, did they worship the one true God? After all, they were monothiestic.
And what about those today who worship a god they call Lucifer, or Satan, do these also worship the one true God? If not, why not?
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
You Forgot these:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, 1434:
“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”
Pope Callixtus III: “I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet [Islam] in the East.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”
Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella fede (# 15), Dec. 8, 1892:
“Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly
promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions…”
You seem to have left out the more important ones. Selective are we?
- Status