Differences

[Lapey]

Nope it doesn’t sound like that to me at all. Because the honest truth is actually quite simple. We can believe there is one ultimate truth. I don’t understand what this means. What do you mean we can believe there is one ultimate truth? There is only one truth. 2 + 2 = 4, that’s it. You can say its 5, but its not.So it is not relativism Please define relativism.like a lot of Catholics seem to like to say. But if we are honest with ourselves the one truth is what we have faith in and believe it to be. If one’s belief is wrong, its wrong.Some might be wrong and others not. But no one truly knows with absolute certainty. This is why we have His Church to teach us.

And the human finite mind can not possibly grasp and truly know all things of God. That is why God is God. And the rest of us, Lapey, well, merely human.So we don’t need the Church to understand God? Just our consciences, so our conscience is automatically filled with everything right and we know everything of God, so we are God then??? Wow, I’m getting a headache.

So see Lapey. To get back more to my original post. Differences.

God bless you on your faith walk and all on their journeys on this earth. And peace my friend to you and to all.

Jesus gave us His Church and His teachings to show us truth, there is only one truth. This is the topic in which you brought to this forum. Differences. You believe one thing and I believe another, my beliefe is what is held by the Church therefore is in line with Church teaching and believed to be right. Your views are not in line with Church teaching and so are believed to be heretical teachings. That is the true and simple use of that term that you orriginally asked about.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks Lapey but I actually already had the whole section on conscience bookmarked! And yes I’ve read it over and over.

Please help me understand where I am in error then, there are many things I don’t agree with too. How do I follow my conscience to make it what I like?

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t understand what this means. What do you mean we can believe there is one ultimate truth?

Please define relativism. So we don’t need the Church to understand God? Just our consciences, so our conscience is automatically filled with everything right and we know everything of God, so we are God then??? Wow, I’m getting a headache.

Jesus gave us His Church and His teachings to show us truth, there is only one truth. This is the topic in which you brought to this forum. Differences. You believe one thing and I believe another, my beliefe is what is held by the Church therefore is in line with Church teaching and believed to be right. Your views are not in line with Church teaching and so are believed to be heretical teachings. That is the true and simple use of that term that you orriginally asked about.

I mean what I said. You and I or anyone else who seeks it, can in faith believe in one truth. My definition of relativism is the opposite. Not believing in one ultimate truth.

No Lapey, I know you have a headache and I am very sorry about that. But you will have to reread my post. I actually say any human can be wrong because humans are not God. We will know if by our faith He comes again. And how much of these differences we all argue about will matter in the end. Until then we walk by faith and not by sight.

Reading now near the end of your words and exactly Lapey! :extrahappy: Now I hope we are getting somewhere and your headache is rescinding with your words, “you believe one thing and I believe another”. Note again I did not say everyone is necessarily going to be right. But what I am saying Lapey in a nutshell is for now it indeed comes down to belief.

 

[CMatt25]

Please help me understand where I am in error then, there are many things I don’t agree with too. How do I follow my conscience to make it what I like?

Lapey, when have I said I know for certain who if anyone is in err? All I believe you or I or anyone, Lapey, can truly do in our time on earth is to study, inform our consciences, pray over it all, open our hearts and listen to what we believe God’s Spirit is telling us. Then have faith. I believe you do that Lapey and you are following your conscience.

 

[guanophore]

Having read these words by another poster addressed to me, "You are not beyond confrontation, especially with a heretical Christian belief" (unsure which heretical belief of mine he was referring to)...  I present some things to ponder including some differences even before the Schism and Reformation.

The Apostles argued over the greatest.

Are you suggesting that this behavior was appropriate, tolerated, or approved by Christ? Did you read what Jesus told them? Do you honestly think that He considered their behavior acceptable?

Paul corrected Peter.

 Disciples differed over circumcision.

How do you figure this? Persons NOT sent out by the Apostles differed. They were heretics and schismatics even before they opened their mouths.

Acts 15:24-25
24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you,

Notice some essential elements here. These heretics went OUT (departed from the Apostolic faith). They were not sent from the Apostles, neither had they any instructions or authority to teach the heresies they did about circumcision.

The effect of their preaching and teaching heresy was causing disturbance (as all such “disagreements” do).

The Apostles and disciples with them were UNANIMOUS! This is the Church Jesus founded. Those who depart from that unanimity depart from the Truth.

 And no one was calling another a heretic in Acts 15.

No, but they did identify which teaching was heretical. No one present at the Council in Jerusalem disagreed about circumcision. all of them accepted the testimony of Peter and Paul, and were pursuaded that God did not intend for the Gentiles to submit to the Mosaic covenant.

 Paul taught in Rom 14 not to argue over doubtful points and not to pass judgment.

You are right, but what God has revealed to the Church about the Truth is not a “doubtful point”. There is no need to pass judgment upon those who refuse it, since they willfully excoummunicate themselves.

 In Acts 15 Paul and Barnabus go their separate ways.  Neither commanded the other submit to the other one.  They agreed to disagree.  To go their separate ways.  But this did not prevent them from doing God's work.

The dispute was an interpersonal one, not a matter of doctrine. If you are using this to justify differences in doctrine then it holds no water. Both Paul and Barnabas embraced the Catholic faith fully.

Saints and Popes have differed.  According to this with its references even on a subject such as abortion.  [religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htmeat](http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htmeat)

Anyone who willfully rejects the Teaching of the Church with regard to such subjects as abortion embraces a heresy, and places themselves in danger of eternal condemnation, whether he is a pope, or a layperson.

No one is acclaimed as a Saint by the Church who has embraced heresies, or rejected any part of the Catholic faith.

 May God bless each of us along our lifelong journeys and walks of faith.  Peace.

And may He lead you to accept His infallible Truth preserved by the HS in the Church He founded.

 

[guanophore]

I wasn’t one who said you would not be Catholic anymore. Even an ecommunicated Catholic is still Catholic. My point simply was, you stopped calling yourself Catholic. Either you lied in the first place or ashamed of who you are.

This is unfair, and inaccurate, Lapey. MattC has been kind enough to remove his affiliation as Catholic to prevent causing a public scandal by embracing non-Catholic ideas here on CAF. He never lied, and he has never been ashamed of being Catholic. He did this as a generous and conciliatory gesture toward many of us that were raising objections. He should be commended for his integrity, not criticized.

 

[guanophore]

I do not speak for the Catholic Church on this forum.

I appreciate your integrity in that regard.

And Lapey, if open Communion as I believe Christ called for in Jn 6:37 with His words, “I will never turn away anyone who comes to me” (GNT approved version by USCCB), makes me a heretic, then I have no problem being labeled or judged a heretic by you.

It is not Lapey, or any other person on CAF that makes this position heretical, but the Teaching of the Apostles. Also, judgement will not come from any of us, but a person who embraces heresies such as this bring judgment upon themselves.

It is what my informed conscience nevertheless still believes. And CCC 1782 and 1790 are 2 which I believe even after informing. They’re in there for some reason. Though it is questionable why they haven’t been removed from the CCC since it is expected you must force your conscience to go by what the Church informs you of anyway. And one truly doesn’t have the freedom of conscience to abide by so as not to be condemned.

One cannot “force” one’s conscience. However, one can realize that a properly formed conscience will be in complete accord with what God has revealed to be true through the Church. And, although one cannot force one’s conscience, one can make an act of the will to embrace what has been revealed, and one’s conscience will follow suit. As Thomas said “Oh Lord, help my unbelief!”.

 

[guanophore]

If you conscience is in direct contradiction of Church teaching and scripture and Tradition, then your conscience if ill formed. It’s time to rethink what your conscience is telling you.

Cut him some slack, Lapey! It was his conscience that led him to rethink claiming he is Catholic here on CAF.

 

[guanophore]

Then just erase those 2 CCC sections and jump right to where one must inform, force their reasoning, mind and conscience to conform to everything.  Or else be in err, ill formed, or heretical because of faith and belief differences with the Catholic Church's beliefs.

No, the Church NEVER says that conscience can be “forced”. On the contrary, you are the one “forcing” this bent perspective into the text. The Church says that our conscience needs to be healed, primarily, informed, and led (not pushed). Jesus characterized us as sheep for a reason. We need to be led into Truth, not forced. Ever tried to force a sheep?

And Ratzinger while serving as Chair of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Tübingen in 1968 before becoming Pope might as well not have said these words, “Above the pope **as an expression of the binding claim of church authority **stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority.”

Notice that the properly formed conscience is “an expression” of the authority of the Church. What this passage is about is that a person has to do what they know is right, even if all the visible authorities over him are missing the mark.

It is not an excuse to rebel against the Teachings of the Church. It is sanction to disobey the leadership if the try to lead the flock into sin.

 

[guanophore]

So what is truth? Is there truth? This makes no sense. You are using the Holy Father’s words wrongly.

If what you say is true, nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

You hit the nail on the head, Lapey. This has always been his position here on CAF. He excuses dissent by claiming that no one can really know the Truth.

Nope it doesn’t sound like that to me at all. Because the honest truth is actually quite simple. We can believe there is one ultimate truth. So it is not relativism like a lot of Catholics seem to like to say. But if we are honest with ourselves the one truth is what we have faith in and believe it to be.

This is what characterizes this position as heretical. The Truth is not defined by what any of us believe it to be. The Truth is found in Christ, and in that which He revealed from the Father to the Church. The Church preserves that Truth infallibly by the power of the HS.

And contrary to what you claim, most people DO NOT believe in what Christ revealed from the Father. The vast majority of American “Catholics” share a postion similar to yours, where they believe that whatever they want to define as Truth is actually what is True.

It is this sickness of moral relativism that has made the Church so sickly. It affirms people in the embracing of moral sins.

 Some might be wrong and others not.  But no one truly knows with absolute certainty.

This is also a lie from the pit. It is the deceiver that wants to lead us into the falsehood that “no one truly knows with absolute certainty”. Such a position in contradiction with the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures

And the human finite mind can not possibly grasp and truly know all things of God. That is why God is God. And the rest of us, Lapey, well, merely human.

And this is nothing but a strawman. No one is claiming that we can know "all things of God’. The Church has never claimed that. You are setting up a false claim, then pretending to debunk it. Get real Matt. Deal with what the Church actually teaches, not something you invented. The Church teaches that everything God wants us to know to live with Him in this life, and for eternity, has been revealed to the Church through His Son, Jesus.

To get back to the original post. Differences.

The “differences” you are claiming to defend are considered heresies because they are a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[CMatt25]

Are you suggesting that this behavior was appropriate, tolerated, or approved by Christ? Did you read what Jesus told them?

Paul corrected Peter.

How do you figure this?

You are right, but what God has revealed to the Church about the Truth is not a “doubtful point”.

The dispute was an interpersonal one, not a matter of doctrine.

Hi Guan, I’m merely suggesting they argued. And yes Jesus told them the greatest was the humble one who was like a child.

I figure it because Acts 15:5 tells me they were believers.

It is your faith that how the Catholic Church interprets what was revealed has no doubtful points.

I might say the dispute was administrative. Who was going to administer to God’s work.

Your other posts dealing about heresy and teachings of the Catholic Church mainly have to do with your faith and belief.

God bless and peace!

 

[guanophore]

So we don’t need the Church to understand God? Just our consciences, so our conscience is automatically filled with everything right and we know everything of God, so we are God then??? Wow, I’m getting a headache.

You are not alone. He has that effect on a lot of us here.

 

[CMatt25]

You are not alone. He has that effect on a lot of us here.

Guan, sorry about the effect you get but do know it comes with love.

Lets all strive to remember as we walk, that He is greater than any differences we might have and embrace our unity in our belief in Him. :grouphug:

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guan, I'm merely suggesting they argued.  And yes Jesus told them the greatest was the humble one who was like a child.

Yes, we can agree that they argued, but it was not over doctrine.

I figure it because Acts 15:5 tells me they were believers.

Clearly their affiliation with the sect of the Pharisees outweighed their affliliation with the Apostles.

It is your faith that how the Catholic Church interprets what was revealed has no doubtful points.

No, CMatt. That is not my faith.

Of course virtually anything that has been revealed to mankind by God may be doubted by people. Everyone has free will to reject what God has spoken and commanded. For example, Adam and Eve fell prey to the serpent’s temptation in the garden. they were pursuaded by Satan that there were “doubtful points” about what God revealed and commanded them. Satan lured them through doubt - “did God say?”

Bottom line, yes, God did say. And He meant what He said. The penalty for going against what He revealed was death.

I might say the dispute was administrative.  Who was going to administer to God's work.

Do you imagine that they both did not do this?

I will stipulate that there have been, and always will be, administrative and interpersonal disputes and differences. None of these rise to the level of the doctrinal differences that you are trying to defend.

Your other posts dealing about heresy and teachings of the Catholic Church mainly have to do with your faith and belief.

God bless and peace!

No, CMatt. Heresy and departure from Church Teaching has nothing to do with my faith and belief. There was heresy and schism before I was born, and will be after I am gone. I am no party to it. Truth exists above and beyond my faith and belief, and will continue to do so.

 

[guanophore]

Lets all strive to remember as we walk, that He is greater than any differences we might have and embrace our unity in our belief in Him. :grouphug:

That is just it, though, CMatt. We do not have the unity He desired for us. Those who have rejected the Catholic faith because of “differences” have embraced a different gospel. The Apostles forbid us to do this, and warned that, if we did so, we would be anathema.

 

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt. That is not my faith.

Do you imagine that they both did not do this?

No, CMatt. Heresy and departure from Church Teaching has nothing to do with my faith and belief. There was heresy and schism before I was born, and will be after I am gone. I am no party to it. Truth exists above and beyond my faith and belief, and will continue to do so.

Ok I thought the Catholic faith was your faith.

No Guan I imagine as my first post read that they both did do God’s work.

Catholic Church teaching and doctrine and dogma and catechism and canon and discipline, all making up the Catholic faith took a long time to develop. Before you were born perhaps but long after Christ was born in the manger too. Have a great night Guan!

 

[guanophore]

Ok I thought the Catholic faith was your faith.

By faith I have embraced Catholicism, but the Truth of that One Faith is not a figment of my personal belief, nor is it “Truth” because I happened to embrace it. On the contrary, I placed my faith because I was pursuaded that it is True. This Truth exists above myself, and apart from myself. It is objective Truth.

No Guan I imagine as my first post read that they both did do God’s work.

But you seem to be claiming that the differences were doctrinal, rather than interpersonal.

Catholic Church teaching and doctrine and dogma and catechism and canon and discipline, all making up the Catholic faith took a long time to develop. Before you were born perhaps but long after Christ was born in the manger too. Have a great night Guan!

You seem to be implying that they were invented over time, rather than delivered to the Church “once for all”, as scripture testifies.

 

[Lapey]

This is unfair, and inaccurate, Lapey. MattC has been kind enough to remove his affiliation as Catholic to prevent causing a public scandal by embracing non-Catholic ideas here on CAF. He never lied, and he has never been ashamed of being Catholic. He did this as a generous and conciliatory gesture toward many of us that were raising objections. He should be commended for his integrity, not criticized.

Believe me I have been in many conversations with Matt on this forum. I know the story and I am familiar with what has transpired over time. It has been quite a while since we have discussed anything, he and I. It is your opinion that this is unfair or inacurate, many would say it was quite charitable. It was meant as an invitation to look inside for answers of what’s true, about himself. I would expect the same from a brother Catholic if I speak in error.

I appreciate your concern here and if there was malice intended, then you would be correct, but there is none. Only a desire to lead our brother back to look for the truth.

 

[Lapey]

Cut him some slack, Lapey! It was his conscience that led him to rethink claiming he is Catholic here on CAF.

I did cut him slack. I always do, ai an attempt to lead him to reasonable thinking. Cherry picking scripture and CCC statements to prove verify what one believes is dangerous, for the one who does it; but more importantly the ones who are led astray by it.

So it is our duty to correct and at times chastise those who teach error. It doesn’t make it any less heretical if I remove my affiliation. Untruth is always untruth. I am sorry if I can’t “award points” for listening to his conscience and removing his affiliation.

We must instruct and invite, I believe that is exactly what I have done, every time we have talked.

I like many of your comments on Matt’s orriginal post. I appreciate your comments to me, and they are duly noted; both the warnings and compliments.

Now let’s get back to the subject, truth!!! Sorry, I couldn’t resist!

 

[CMatt25]

By faith I have embraced Catholicism, but the Truth of that One Faith is not a figment of my personal belief, nor is it “Truth” because I happened to embrace it. On the contrary, I placed my faith because I was pursuaded that it is True. This Truth exists above myself, and apart from myself.

Exactly. By faith. And you were pursuaded the Catholic faith is the Truth. I understand that.

In Romans 14 the Apostle Paul when speaking about disputes and not judging, even said regarding which day to observe, to let each be convinced in their own minds.

Earlier you spoke of “rejected”. Guan, perhaps some “reject” the Catholic faith
because they became pursuaded and believe the Catholic Church was in err, or strayed. And they believe Christ may have to reform in order to keep His promise about the gates.

Just as you have embraced by faith, so may others their faith. I hope that helps you understand others as I understand you. God bless.