Defenders of Heretics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sword_of_Fire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can probably find it online if you’re interested in it. Basically he was elected because they thought he could be manipulated but ended up being impossible to control and he was intent on bringing “the old church” back, much to the chagrin of the establishment so to speak.
 
I join you in your condemnation of heresy, but the Vatican has called us to a different approach in our evangelization of the heretics.
 
I’m thinking more along the lines of people who claim the catholic title but quote the protestant versions of the Bible.
 
“To know whom to avoid is a great means of saving our souls. […] Thus, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith by corrupting it, such as heretics, or by renouncing it, such as apostates.”-St Thomas Aquinas
Respectfully opinion only and not to offend. But in reading His Spoken Word in the Scriptures, Jesus seems to do the opposite does he not?

Preaches Love your neighbor as you Love yourself?
Would that not include heretics? We will be judged by our actions or faithfulness to His Word, not judged by the heretics actions, but by what we do to others?

Do onto others what you would want done unto you?

Jesus did not teach us not to help those in need or ask first if they are heretics, before we help them in their needs, did he, or is there any where in Scriptures that teach such?

Jesus did the opposite, did he not>>for He reaches out, approaches, sits and talks to those who do not believe or accept the Spoken Word ( heretics?) Jesus sought to seek out the heretic, to preach to those in all walks in Life. to convert them, yet forces not?

Jesus did he not command and sent out His Apostles>>> to approach the heretic, go out into all Nations, call out to heretics, to teach them to give them the Spoken Word?

Jesus preaches to sinners, those who were not of his flock, those who were out side the faith did he not?
Jesus >>Approaches sinners, heretic>Samaritan Woman at the well?

Jesus defends the outcast, like the woman in adultery, those without sin throw the first stone? In Jesus time be known as a heretic, broken away nor obeyed or followed the Spoken Word?

Jesus commands his own Apostles to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel >>those who had
manifested their own errors publicly ( join to other beliefs or gods) those who forsaken the Faith,
those who were weak and simple minded and where mislead, to bring them back into the faith, would they not be thought of as heretics?
Jesus sought not to cast them out, or forsake them, but to even lay down his very life for them and labored to bring them back into the fold of Faith and Belief, did he not?
My goodness the more one ponders, on the topic of Heretics>>
Did Jesus not do the opposite, did He not?

Were we not at one time,our early forefathers, in ancient time, when Jesus walked the earth, not also heretics, not being born or raised in the Faith and Belief?

Jesus did not force anyone either did he, or sought to do harm did he?

Jesus does he not tell us as written, the door is open to us >grafted on?

Jesus was sent to the Heretics on earth?
He came to preach, teach, gather, He approached, He communicated with the herectics and laid down his very life in doing so even, did he not, to bring about salvation to All?

Jesus did not, come to save the righteous ones, but those who were unrighteous>the heretics and give them the Spoken Word of God?

Just opinion pondering on and not to offend either. Peace 🙂
 
Last edited:
Jesus, being perfect, is never in danger of being led astray by heretics. Some people can engage heretics and win them over, some succumb to their charms and fall into heresy themselves. Unless your faith is strong enough to battle heresy, you’re best served to avoid it.
 
“Heretic” can be used in the same way as “cultural Marxist” or “white supremacist”, are used in politics in my opinion.
Therefore I avoid it.
 
Even the Protestant versions of the Bible manifest the truth that is the Catholic Faith.
 
Here’s what Vatican II teaches:
Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.
During certain times and circumstances the Church has outright forbid such common prayer as a matter of caution against the risk of such dangers. However, common prayer and other common activities can be used to foster true unity provided that the above dangers are avoided–such things have been permitted on a limited basis, during various times and circumstances in the past as well.
 
Last edited:
I was reading an article by a psychologist concerning opinions. His comment that what is generally accepted is that people find evidence, and from that, form opinions.

He noted that his research sat that concept on its head; rather, he found that people have opinions, and search out evidence to support the opinions.

This thread seems to have evidence of that sequence. People have the opinion that (Protestants are heretics) such is an immortal truth, and then go looking for a council or papal pronouncement which fits their opinion. They do not appear to understand that some of the pronouncements are time and situation specific, and that a subsequent council, in a different time period and dealing with different issues, may say otherwise.

I have come across everything from cautionary questions to outright rejection of what Vatican 2 had to say about other Christian communities. Kind of funny to watch, given that in grade school I learned, back in the 1950’s and following the Baltimore Catechism, that Christ made a promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that the Church would be protected from error in faith and morals.

Funny how that no longer seems to apply. I guess the HS took a vacation somewhere back before the Council.
 
I’m thinking more along the lines of people who claim the catholic title but quote the protestant versions of the Bible.
Did you try pointing out to these people that they were quoting the “wrong” version of the Bible? With catechesis being what it is, they may not even realize there’s a difference.
 
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” – The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1892)
 
These old canons have been abrogated by the current Code of Canon Law

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the 1983 Code of Canon Law are the sources of all guiding canons to Catholics today.

The Church is a living organism - we aren’t stuck in the 13th century in some sort of spiritual museum. Those old canons existed for a certain purpose, for certain people, at a certain time. They were not established as some sort of eternal commandment.

It’s the same thing with the EO @AlNg - have you never seen all the whacky canons out there which Old Calendarists love to quote? Like not going to a Jewish business? Those canons are not followed for the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top