Did my priest preach heresy?

[Madaglan]

Today I had a really negative experience at Mass. During his homily the priest told a story. The story was about a young freshman in college who got in a car accident and found himself in the middle of the road. Nobody was around, and he wondered if an ambulance would come or if he would be run over. It was then that he prayed to God and opened himself up to God’s will. He then experienced a profound sense of peace. After being rescued, however, he went back to his old ways. He joined a fraternity, partied and lost focus of Christ.

Then, after becoming a successful oil businessman, he one day drove far away from work and parked on the side of the road. He then opened himself up to God, and, according to my priest, *“truly became ‘born again’” *

Now, I don’t mean to sound like a heretic-hunter, but the way the priest described this guy’s experience as being ‘born again’ kinda disturbed me, since it didn’t sound Catholic. Several other people in the pews, I noticed, also seemed to react to what the priest said.

I notice that in the Catholic Answer tract titled, “Are Catholics Born Again,” it is written:

When a Catholic says that he has been “born again,” he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being “born again.”

For an Evangelical, becoming “born again” often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be “born again.”

“If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!” says the preacher. So the gentleman makes “a decision for Christ” and at the altar call goes forward to be led in “the sinner’s prayer” by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—“born again.” But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible.

It just seems that, in the context of the story, my priest was leaning more towards an evangelical meaning if my priest indeed knew what he was implying when he said “born again.”

Do you think that my priest was wrong in what he said? Do you think that perhaps he should have used a different phrase, such as “truly experienced a deeper conversion to Christ”?

I don’t mean to be a heretic-hunter, but I’ve noticed many Catholics utilizing, perhaps unwittingly, the words “born again” with an evangelical rather than a Catholic meaning. For example, one lady told me of the charismatic “Baptism in the Spirit” as being a “born again” experience. It’s really scary, to tell you the truth.

So, I appreciate your views on the matter.

 

[anJayRN]

Why don’t you ask your priest for clarification? You can tell him that you’re used to hearing the term ‘born again’ used by evangelicals and that you were wondering how he meant it. Maybe he meant it in the sense of ‘conversion’ (conversion of the soul) , which many saints have talked about in their writings to describe a time in their life when they truly turned to God.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by anJayRN:

Why don’t you ask your priest for clarification? You can tell him that you’re used to hearing the term ‘born again’ used by evangelicals and that you were wondering how he meant it. Maybe he meant it in the sense of ‘conversion’ (conversion of the soul) , which many saints have talked about in their writings to describe a time in their life when they truly turned to God.

Yeah, I think that I’m going to shoot off an email to him today, politely asking him what he exactly meant when he used the phrase “truly became ‘born again.’” I have a feeling that he will answer that he simply meant a deeper conversion to Christ–quite possibly accompanied with a great sense of peace or the presence of God–which is completely Catholic, but which I think should not be described as “born again” so not as to give the wrong impression.

 

[anJayRN]

Dear Madaglan,
Yeah, using the term ‘born again’ is probably confusing because of the fact that it has a specific doctrinal meaning in Evangelical circles. Maybe, if you nicely question him about it, he’ll realize that and avoid it in the future.

Alot of Catholics have been influenced by the predominance of Evangelical theology, in addition to the fact that many are poorly informed about our own. We really could use better catechesis, since our theology isn’t as simplistic as the Evangelicals have.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Heresy has a very specific definition:
CCC #2089:

…"*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;…

Did this priest deny or express doubt about what the Church teaches about Baptism or conversion? From your report, I would have to say no.

True, he probably could have chosen better words to describe this experience than those he used. But we must also be careful not to use inappropriate words, such as heresy, to describe such situations as this.

 

[WBB]

I don’t know that it is heresy, but I don’t think it is correct of the priest to say that the man was “born again” outside of baptism. I agree with you that the term “conversion” is probably better suited for the story.

 

[BibleReader]

Language is custom. Unless one is extremely clear, custom establishes the meaning of words.

The customary meaning of “born again” is, “Are you ‘saved’?,” meaning, “finally and fullly [so, why would one need sacraments???],” and, “Do you have a PERSONAL relationship with God [with no Church characterized by priests authorized by a sacrament of Orders acting as a sacramental intermediary, interfering with that PERSONAL relationship]?”

The term “born again” is in the Catholic Bible. However, customary language appends to its meaning the consciously-anti-Catholic debris describe above.

 

[PhilipCal]

The only way to determine what your priest meant is to ask him. I feel rather confident though, that he meant nothing improper by using the term “born again”. I was away from our Catholic Faith for almost 40 years, and in that time experienced the Protestant view(s) on Salvation. It can probably be best desribed with the acronym “KIS” or keep it simple. Without getting into doctrinal differences, I feel confident that our Catholic Faith has the correct answers, and there is nothing on this Earth more beautiful and sublime than participation in the Sacramental life of Holy Mother Church. IE: the Consecration at Mass when Bread and Wine actually become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. No one else does that Gang, no one.

 

[Greg00]

I don’t see anthing wrong with it at all. Jesus himself even said, “Ye must be born again.” So I really don’t see any problem here.

 

[mark_a]

Madaglan:

Today I had a really negative experience at Mass. During his homily the priest told a story. The story was about a young freshman in college who got in a car accident and found himself in the middle of the road. Nobody was around, and he wondered if an ambulance would come or if he would be run over. It was then that he prayed to God and opened himself up to God’s will. He then experienced a profound sense of peace. After being rescued, however, he went back to his old ways. He joined a fraternity, partied and lost focus of Christ.

Then, after becoming a successful oil businessman, he one day drove far away from work and parked on the side of the road. He then opened himself up to God, and, according to my priest, *“truly became ‘born again’” *

I’m not sure I understand the story. Was he born again because he opened himself up to God (the second time) when he he wasn’t in a despiration situation?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Magdaglan,

When was Jesus born again? Scripture points to Jesus death and ressurection as the time when He is begotten of God or as Nicodemus calls it born again. Jesus tells us we are reborn with water and the Spirit. I think our ressurection through Christ into spritual life relates more to being begotten of God than some “I accept Jesus as my personal Saviour” statement on earth.

The Protestants abuse the scriptural term begotten of God to glorify themselves as God’s choosen few on earth. Jesus warns us that violent people are forcing their way into the Kingdom of God through John’s baptism and teachings. Obviously one cannot force their way into heaven. Jesus is talking about people who abuse baptism to verbally force their way into being seen by the world as in possession of heaven. John was Baptised, the Holy Spirit was with him and he accepted Jesus as his Saviour. Still Jesus assures us that as great as John the Baptist is, he is not yet born into the Kingdom of God while he is alive on earth.

Please visit Jesus Loves God

NAB MAT 11:11

"I solemnly assure you, history has not known a man born of woman greater than John the Baptizer. Yet the least born into the Kingdom of God is greater than he. From John the Baptizer’s time until now the kingdom of God has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force." NAB PSA 2:4

He who is throned in heaven laughs; the LORD derides them; Then in anger he speaks to them; he terrifies them in his wrath: “I myself have set up my king on Zion, my holy mountain. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: The LORD said to me, 'You are my son; this day I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for an inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession. You shall rule them with an iron rod: you shall shatter them like an earthen dish.’” NAB ACT 13:32

“We ourselves announce to you the good news that what God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, in raising up Jesus, according to what is written in the second psalm, You are my son; this day I have begotten you.” **NAB JOH 3:3 **

Jesus gave him this answer: “I solemnly assure you, no one can see the reign of God unless he is begotten from above.” “How can a man be born again once he is old?” retorted Nicodemus. “Can he return to his mother’s womb and be born over again?” Jesus replied: “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit.” NAB 1PE 3:18He was put to death insofar as fleshly existence goes, but was given life in the realm of the spirit.NAB HEB 1:5 Messianic Enthronement.

To which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”? And again, when he leads his first-born into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” NAB REV 1:4 Greetings.

To the seven churches in the province of Asia: John wishes you grace and peace – from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before the throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born from the dead and ruler of the kings of earth.NAB PSA 89:27

“He shall say of me, ‘You are my father, my God, the Rock, my savior.’ And I will make him the first-born, highest of the kings of the earth.” NAB COL 1:15 Fullness and Reconciliation.

He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creatures. In him everything in heaven and on earth was created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations, principalities, or powers; all were created through him, and for him. He is before all else that is. In him everything continues in being. It is he who is head of the body, the church; he who is the beginning, the** first-born of the dead**, so that primacy may be his in everything.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Bilodeau:

Did this priest deny or express doubt about what the Church teaches about Baptism or conversion? From your report, I would have to say no.

True, he probably could have chosen better words to describe this experience than those he used. But we must also be careful not to use inappropriate words, such as heresy, to describe such situations as this.

Thank you for the CCC quote. I hope that you do not think that I was trying to label these people as “heretics.” This is why I mentioned that I do not want to be seen as a “heretic-hunter,” mostly since I do not know to what degree these people are aware of their heterodox opinions, and to what degree they are obstinate in denying Catholic truth–and therefore I cannot tell who is truly a “heretic” and who is not.

The way I framed the poll question: “Did my priest preach heresy?” (“heresy” being synonymous here with heterodox beliefs–those beliefs contrary to Catholic beliefs–and being more directly linked with the verbal communication than with the priest himself) rather than “Is my priest a heretic?” I hope demonstrates that I am focusing more on what was said than on whether or not my priest is heretical–although a large part of my thread concerns why a well-educated priest should not be aware of the heterodox evangelical connotations in his homily.

I was almost certain that such a usage of “born again” in this context is strictly evangelical, but I thought perhaps that some Catholic saints, etc. may have casucally used the term in a non-sacramental context. I now suppose this is not the case.

Perhaps the word “heresy” in the post is not P.C., but I do hope you know what I mean by it. Thanks for your info.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by mark a:

I’m not sure I understand the story. Was he born again because he opened himself up to God (the second time) when he he wasn’t in a despiration situation?

I believe that is what the priest was trying to get across. The first time he only had partial free-will to open up to God, because he was in a desperate situation; but the second time it was more of his own volition. The first time was when the man experience God in a personal way, but it was only the second time that the man freely and completely gave himself over to God and “*truly *became ‘born again’”

 

[Madaglan]

Btw, no offense intended by post 12. Just wanted to clear up what I was talking about. I understand where you’re coming from though.

I didn’t mean any harm

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Madaglan:

Btw, no offense intended by post 12. Just wanted to clear up what I was talking about. I understand where you’re coming from though.

I certainly am not offended by your post and I appreciate your explanations. The only thing I would still disagree with would be:

Madaglan:

…“heresy” being synonymous here with heterodox beliefs…

because they aren’t synonymous, quite. There are heresies that result from heterodox beliefs, but there are also heterodox beliefs that do not cross the line into heresy, and there are heresies that do not result from heterodox beliefs so much as the lack of corresponding orthodox beliefs. Rather than being synonymous, they are words defining sets of conditions that overlap, but not completely, like pets and dogs. There are pets that are dogs, but there are also pets that are not dogs and there are dogs that are not pets.

 

[DianJo]

Ok - See what y’all think about this:
I have been Catholic most all my life. I was baptized when I was 7 years old into the Catholic faith when my mother converted. I attended Catholic school through high school. Fell away (not formally) in college and came back unexpectedly because a co-worker sponsored into Cursillo.

While at Cursillo - which was the most wonderful thing to EVER happen to me - something happend to me one evening (which, I suppose is the whole point of Cursillo!). A small group of us went to adoration and it was during this time that I had this epiphany of sorts. It was sudden and it was the most incredible feeling of being overtaken and filled up by something! It was completely overwhelming and as you can see, I have trouble putting it into words! There was an incredible feeling of complete love, there was an understanding that surpassed anything I had previously ever known, an overwhelming sense of peace, joy and whatever other emotion you can name! The veil had been lifted - I understood everything! Not a book knowledge, I don’t know what kind of knowledge you’d call this, but it was fabulous! Everything made sense in just an instant!

There was a sudden knowledge and understanding that “I was saved” for lack of other words. I was ectaticly happy because of this - I understood what Jesus’ sacrifice meant. I cried for the better part of my time remaining at Cursillo. I have never known such incredible happiness and joy!

Of course, after this I came flying back into the Church and changed my life a total 360 degrees! My whole way of thinking changed - everything! It “stuck”, too, because I am still on fire about my faith!

Now, my husband who is a Baptist (OSAS) was ectatic, too, because he knew that “I had been saved!” He said he would always worry about me, being Catholic and all, that I wouldn’t go to heaven since we think we go to heaven by our works!! Now he knew that we would be together because I was now saved! Funny, huh?!

Is this what everyone is referring to? Well, as a Catholic and not knowing much about my faith at the time, I equated it with the same thing my husband was talking about - being saved - all in one fled swoop! I told my Asst. Pastor about my “experience” and he was very happy for me and said that I had a “spiritual awakening!”

That’s what it was - a spiritual awakening. I had been baptized, I had the Holy Spirit from Baptism. I had received the gifts of the Holy Spirit at my Confirmation - All I had to do was cooperate with Him and He came alive within me!!! These things are within us all - all we have to do is open up and stay open and be a willing participant! Although, I didn’t, at the time, realize what was “supposed” to happen at Cursillo and therefore I didn’t know to pray for that! That’s what really amazing - it just came without me realizing it!

OSASers go about it backwards - they wait for that awakening and then sybolically get baptized to show everyone that they’ve been saved! But I have a question on this: How can they be saved prior to Baptism? This is one thing that confuses me and maybe someone here can clear me up - if OSASers are not baptized how is it that they can “receive the Holy Spirit” before Baptism and claim to be saved? They don’t claim that Baptism does anything so essentailly they don’t really see a need to be baptized other than to show others they’ve been saved? It sounds like they could really do without Baptism altogether. They don’t claim to be saved through Baptism. It happened that way in Acts, too. I forget what chapter. Is it because God is not confined by our rules or what? Somebody clear me up on this because this happens all the time with OSASers.

This “experience,” I think, is what your pastor may have been talking about.

 

[m134e5]

DianJo:

A small group of us went to adoration and it was during this time that I had this epiphany of sorts. It was sudden and it was the most incredible feeling of being overtaken and filled up by something! It was completely overwhelming and as you can see, I have trouble putting it into words! There was an incredible feeling of complete love, there was an understanding that surpassed anything I had previously ever known, an overwhelming sense of peace, joy and whatever other emotion you can name! The veil had been lifted - I understood everything! Not a book knowledge, I don’t know what kind of knowledge you’d call this, but it was fabulous! Everything made sense in just an instant!

Good description. I felt like that when I first went to adoration. The feeling is amazing- words cannot describe it totally.

 

[DianJo]

m134e5:

Good description. I felt like that when I first went to adoration. The feeling is amazing- words cannot describe it totally.

Yeah - Don’t you wish you could have this one and only powerful feeling of the Holy Spirit everyday!!!

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Joseph Bilodeau:

because they aren’t synonymous, quite. There are heresies that result from heterodox beliefs, but there are also heterodox beliefs that do not cross the line into heresy, and there are heresies that do not result from heterodox beliefs so much as the lack of corresponding orthodox beliefs. Rather than being synonymous, they are words defining sets of conditions that overlap, but not completely, like pets and dogs. There are pets that are dogs, but there are also pets that are not dogs and there are dogs that are not pets.

If you take the strict CCC definition of “heresy” and compare it with “heterodox belief,” then you are correct: they are not synonymous.

However, if you include the primary modern English meaning of the word “heresy” and compare it with CCC meaning of the same word, then they are. The CCC definition of “heresy” refers to an *act *and has temporal length associated with it through the word “obstinate.” My use of the word “heresy” was in reference to abstract objects such as *ideas, thoughts, opinion, beliefs, doctrines, etc. *According to definition 1a under the entry for “heresy” at dictionary.com, “heresy” is “an opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.” This first definition refers to abstract objects, such as belief, doctrines, etc. .

Since “heterodox beliefs” means those beliefs “not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma” (dictionary.com), we can safely say that the two are more or less synonymous, even though the word heresy carries a greater oppositional import. For words to be synonyms, there need not be complete agreement of significations. The important things are that the usage of the part of speech is presserved (action, object, state, quality, etc.), and that the core meaning of replaced word is not significantly altered.

Defintion 1b for “heresy” (heresy = adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine) falls more in line with how the CCC refers to “heresy” as an *act. This definition can in no way be synonymous with the definition of “heterodox beliefs” listed above, since an act cannot be a synonym for the abstract object which “belief” implies. *

So, I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree with your logic insofar as you strictly use the definition from the CCC.

It’s really a disagreement on language, which is not extremely concrete, but rather is quite fluid and, at times, uncertain. You are looking at “heresy” as more or less an act; I am seeing “heresy” in the lens of beliefs. Both are definitions of heresy.

 

[Madaglan]

Just an addendum:

I just wanted to make sure that there are no hard feelings. I imagine that you may still have reservations about the two words/phrases being synonymous, which I can understand. After thinking about the issue, I really think that any disagreements are primarily the result of each of us having different significations for each word. You, of course, are free to disagree and to add any final remarks. It’s probably best if we stop right here, unless you have any final comments to add.

In any case, have a nice evening!