Denial of Purgatory

[Joysong]

TheDoctor:

Second, you say that when asked why, “he says he doesn’t believe it exists” yet in post #15 when asked if you have spoken to this priest you threw up that quote from Titus, which I took to mean you have not. So, if you have not spoken specifically to the priest yourself, how do you know what he believes or does not believe? Did someone else tell you? Could they have gotten it wrong?

I think you were referring to Post #45, not #15. Yes, this poster avoided the question completely, leading one to believe the priest was not consulted.

 

[wcknight]

Seems to me, the OP has a real personal axe to grind. The priest may be in error, but if he doesn’t even want to discuss it with him in a friendly manner, then I think he has as much of a problem as the priest.

You may be 100% right but also 100% wrong on how you approach things. The Pharisees and Sadducees were often right about what they were talking about, but it’s their attitude and approach that Jesus objected to.

 

[ncjohn]

A heretic is outside the Church until he confesses and is reconciled to God and the Church. One is not automatically Catholic by baptism, as a willful post-baptismal rejection of any dogma of the Catholic faith that must be believed de fide, places one outside the Church.

Outside of communion with the Church is not the same as no longer being Catholic. As I said, I’ll need to find the reference but a Catholic is a Catholic until death absent them recanting their baptism.

As far as your second statement, you are correct that we cannot pronounce judgment on the soul of the person as being outside the Church and the degree of guilt involved; however, we can gather evidence and make conclusions based on the evidence we have available. If someone is openly teachings contrary to the faith, we have a duty as Catholics to confront such a person in charity and humility, especially if he be a priest.

One can come to whatever conclusions they might want but one cannot tell someone else, absent the Church declaring it to be so, that anyone else is a heretic. One might state that they believe someone to be teaching heresy but that would be about as far as they can go.

I do agree that there is a duty to confront one about suspected heresy, or to report same to someone in authority. And one could certainly warn others to be careful in accepting a teaching believed to be heretical as long as one doesn’t proclaim the person to be heretical.

Peace,

 

[theistgal]

*Originally Posted by theistgal *

To the OP: Have you spoken to the priest?

10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. - St. Paul, Titus 3:2

So did you speak to the priest about this twice, before coming here to CA?

 

[TheDoctor]

I think you were referring to Post #45, not #15. Yes, this poster avoided the question completely, leading one to believe the priest was not consulted.

Thanks for catching that! I just believe not everyone realizes the debt we owe to our Priests and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Joysong]

TheDoctor:

Thanks for catching that! I just believe not everyone realizes the debt we owe to our Priests and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I certainly agree with you Doctor. As I read this entire thread, there is so little evidence about the OP’s priest as to make this whole discussion unprofitable. It has not been stated that he preaches from the pulpit that there is definitely NO purgatory. All we can determine from post #9 was that there may be a doubt or denial; but nothing to indicate that he preaches a denial publicly to a congregation. There’s also a huge difference if he regularly preaches denial or whether he made a statement of personal doubt about purgatory in an isolated incident that may have been misinterpreted by the OP. I don’t understand why the matter should be brought to CA, [since we don’t know any of the details] rather than discuss it with the priest and/or his superior.

RJames:

So a parish priest, who eithers denies or positively doubts the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, is a heretic and should be cast out by his parishoners if their Bishop will not remove him.

In the event it is a doubt, there is no probability of heresy. It does not carry the same grave degree as heresy. Nor do we know if there IS a doubt whether it is involutary or voluntary. It is so easy to get into rash judgment based on assumptions.
Catechism:

**2088 ** Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

 

[RJames]

A heretic is outside the Church until he confesses and is reconciled to God and the Church. One is not automatically Catholic by baptism, as a willful post-baptismal rejection of any dogma of the Catholic faith that must be believed de fide, places one outside the Church. Perhaps you are thinking about one who is in a state of mortal sin such as for committing a moral offense. In such a case, one might argue them to be a withered branch but still in some way connected to the Vine, but in the case of heresy, one has placed himself outside the Church.

As far as your second statement, you are correct that we cannot pronounce judgment on the soul of the person as being outside the Church and the degree of guilt involved; however, we can gather evidence and make conclusions based on the evidence we have available. If someone is openly teachings contrary to the faith, we have a duty as Catholics to confront such a person in charity and humility, especially if he be a priest.

One is not automatically Catholic by baptism, as a willful post-baptismal rejection of any dogma of the Catholic faith that must be believed de fide, places one outside the Church.

This is not correct for infants; if they are validly baptised they are members of the Church. When the reach a certain canonical age and are adhering to a heretical sect they are considered as outside the Church, even though they may be guilty of only material heresy. Someone who is a member of the Luthern Church is not considered a Catholic, even though it is possible they are within the Church by desire.

 

[RJames]

Seems to me, the OP has a real personal axe to grind. The priest may be in error, but if he doesn’t even want to discuss it with him in a friendly manner, then I think he has as much of a problem as the priest.

You’ve made a number of assumptions here, about me, without any basis. Do you have “an axe to grind”?

You may be 100% right but also 100% wrong on how you approach things. The Pharisees and Sadducees were often right about what they were talking about, but it’s their attitude and approach that Jesus objected to.

You are kidding here, aren’t you?

 

[RJames]

Thanks for catching that! I just believe not everyone realizes the debt we owe to our Priests and I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4503324&postcount=38

Post #38 was well before post #45.

 

[RJames]

Joysong:

RJames:

So a parish priest, who eithers denies or positively doubts the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, is a heretic and should be cast out by his parishoners if their Bishop will not remove him.

In the event it is a doubt, there is no probability of heresy. It does not carry the same grave degree as heresy. Nor do we know if there IS a doubt whether it is involutary or voluntary. It is so easy to get into rash judgment based on assumptions.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The underlined is a positive doubt.

 

[RJames]

Joysong:

It has not been stated that he preaches from the pulpit that there is definitely NO purgatory.

Why must he do this. That’s not what the CCC definition says.

Or is that just your requirement?

 

[Joysong]

Originally Posted by Joysong
It has not been stated that he preaches from the pulpit that there is definitely NO purgatory.

Why must he do this. That’s not what the CCC definition says.

Or is that just your requirement?

Do what? He must preach to the congregation as proof of his heresy? I would think so; otherwise you don’t have anything more than rash judgment. You still have not stated that he preaches a denial of purgatory, as opposed to simply saying in an insolated situation that he may be grappling with certain doubts about the full teaching of the doctrine.

And, I believe Wcknight had reason to say you had an “axe to grind”. Particularly harsh is your statement that the parishioners should cast him out. Are you organizing?

 

[Genesis315]

How do you know it’s obstinate? St. Paul suggests two admonishments, Our Blessed Lord says see alone with hi first, then with a witness, then tell the Church, and if he still relents, only then avoid him.

 

[RJames]

Do what? He must preach to the congregation as proof of his heresy? I would think so; otherwise you don’t have anything more than rash judgment. You still have not stated that he preaches a denial of purgatory, as opposed to simply saying in an insolated situation that he may be grappling with certain doubts about the full teaching of the doctrine.

And, I believe Wcknight had reason to say you had an “axe to grind”. Particularly harsh is your statement that the parishioners should cast him out. Are you organizing?

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

That not what the CCC says.

Or is that just your requirement?

 

[Joysong]

Do what? He must preach to the congregation as proof of his heresy? I would think so; otherwise you don’t have anything more than rash judgment. You still have not stated that he preaches a denial of purgatory, as opposed to simply saying in an insolated situation that he may be grappling with certain doubts about the full teaching of the doctrine.

Until you answer the questions that I and others have presented to you, I see no point in continuing this discussion. You consistently avoid the questions, change the subject, and repeat your focused objective of condemning your priest as a heretic. We have seen no proof of your allegations.

So yes, it does appear that you have ‘an axe to grind’ as Wcknight suggested earlier.

 

[una_fides]

Outside of communion with the Church is not the same as no longer being Catholic. As I said, I’ll need to find the reference but a Catholic is a Catholic until death absent them recanting their baptism.

Please cite the source for your belief here. Baptism leaves a mark on the soul for eternity, but one must be Catholic in faith to be Catholic in reality. I know that heretics are outside the Church, meaning no longer in the Church. They are a branch that has been removed from the vine. I guess we are quibbling over whether they still have the label of “Catholic” due to their baptism even though they are not Catholic in reality for to be Catholic both implies and involves the acceptance of the Church’s dogmas of the faith. Again, please provide your source, preferrably something prior to Vatican II if you can. (Many post Vatican II documents can be vague in wording, and I don’t want to have to get into a debate over interpretation. Thanks! )

One might state that they believe someone to be teaching heresy but that would be about as far as they can go.

I do agree that there is a duty to confront one about suspected heresy, or to report same to someone in authority. And one could certainly warn others to be careful in accepting a teaching believed to be heretical as long as one doesn’t proclaim the person to be heretical.

Peace,

I think you are saying that we can’t actually judge the state of the soul of the other; however, we can certainly say that the substance of the teaching itself is heresy as long as we have enough information to make such a claim. Many saints in the past have done, and it was often based on their claims that the Church then made its pronouncements. St. Augustine is an excellent example. We can also therefore conclude that a person is teaching heresy. And if a person is teaching heresy, he is a heretic. For a person to be guilty of heresy, he must be conscious of the teachings of the Church and willfully reject them. Whether a person is guilty of heresy is for the Church to decide, but we can certainly formulate our opinions based on the evidence we have, and we certainly should not be rash or jump to any conclusions, but we should also not be naive. A person may also be guilty for not dillgently seeking knowledge concerning the Church’s teachings, which then results in defective teachings. A priest should know the teachings of the faith, and in this case has a duty to know the Church’s teachings on purgatory. Though the priest could have some sort of mental handicap or it’s possible that perhaps the priest’s statements were not understood properly, most likely the priest is in a state of heresy, but that’s where we can’t say for sure, and must confront the priest concerning such. This is my understanding from my studies, but if you can show me where the Church officially teaches otherwise, I will promptly recant.

 

[thistle]

Is it not the case that a Catholic who is excommunicated is simply an excommunicated Catholic who is denied access to any of the Sacraments? They do not cease to be a Catholic. They are a fallen Catholic. Someone who is not a Catholic cannot go to Confession and receive absolution but a person who is excommunicated can do that (e.g. someone who had an abortion) and have immediate access to all the Sacraments including Communion.
The only difference between a person who is excommunicated and one who is not but in a state of mortal sin is the number of Sacraments they have access to. Neither are in full union with the Church but you would not say both are not Catholic.

On your comments about heresy and who is a heretic I agree. If someone knows the teachings of the Church and deliberately rejects one or more of these teachings and teaches something different then its not a reach to call them a heretic.

 

[RJames]

Is it not the case that a Catholic who is excommunicated is simply an excommunicated Catholic who is denied access to any of the Sacraments? They do not cease to be a Catholic. They are a fallen Catholic.

Here is the definition by Pius XII:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

1. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. [20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

1. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better “to be cured within the Church’s community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members.” [21] “As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed.” [22]

Someone who is not a Catholic cannot go to Confession and receive absolution but a person who is excommunicated can do that (e.g. someone who had an abortion) and have immediate access to all the Sacraments including Communion.

Excommunication is a censure.

The only difference between a person who is excommunicated and one who is not but in a state of mortal sin is the number of Sacraments they have access to. Neither are in full union with the Church but you would not say both are not Catholic.

If one is not a heretic, apostate, or schismatic; they are still a member of the Church.

On your comments about heresy and who is a heretic I agree. If someone knows the teachings of the Church and deliberately rejects one or more of these teachings and teaches something different then its not a reach to call them a heretic.

It’s not necessary to “teach” heresy to be a heretic. That is only a requirement of Joysong. You may also want to check with Catholicculture.org as that appears to be Joysong’s “Holy Office” which declares certain website as “heretical”. Catholiculture.org must be some kind of revival of the Index of Forbidden Books.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[thistle]

Here is the definition by Pius XII:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Excommunication is a censure.

If one is not a heretic, apostate, or schismatic; they are still a member of the Church.

It’s not necessary to “teach” heresy to be a heretic. That is only a requirement of Joysong. You may also want to check with Catholicculture.org as that appears to be Joysong’s “Holy Office” which declares certain website as “heretical”. Catholiculture.org must be some kind of revival of the Index of Forbidden Books.

I have no idea what you mean by Joysong or how that relates to what I said.
I never said its necessary to “teach” heresy for a person to be a heretic. The reason I used that expression is because I thought this thread was about a priest teaching that there is no purgatory.

 

[wcknight]

You’ve made a number of assumptions here, about me, without any basis. Do you have “an axe to grind”?

You are kidding here, aren’t you?

No, I’m not 'kidding". It is a matter of attidude.

And No, I’ve made no assumptions about you but just based my gut feeling on the wording and tone of your posts.

First off, you tell us you have not bothered to discuss this with the priest in question.

Second, given that every priest dedicates his life to the Church, most of us here think we ought to give every priest the benefit of a doubt when such serious allegations are made.

It appears that you have made yourself judge, jury, and executioner. And my question to you is WHY ???

Are you prepared to ruin a man’s life and in paticular a man of God based on what you think are heretic remarks ? I think the spirit in which you make these allegations is far more sinister than the allegations themselves. And that is precisely how the Pharisees treated Jesus. No kidding !

AND I do have an axe to grind, I object strenusously to anyone attacking a priest without due process, and taking it upon themselves to discredit a priest on remarks with out proper explanation or defense. I think it is uncharitable and unChristian.