From the synod: Mercy is not an abandonment of Church teaching [CNA]

[Prodigal_40s]

Precisely – I’m in total agreement. And my reading of DaddyGirl’s comments aligns with your final sentence here.

Yes, I did. I asked two questions meant to find out whom you were describing with the word “heresy.”

It’s a real pleasure trying to have a conversation with you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your comments. :tiphat:

Here’s your post:
So now the bishops are heretics? Or are you calling other CAF members heretics?

Sorry but I found your posts in this thread deceptive and utterly tedious

 

[gracepoole]

Here’s your post:
So now the bishops are heretics? Or are you calling other CAF members heretics?

Yes. Which is why I said in my last post, "I asked two questions meant to find out whom you were describing with the word “heresy.”

Sorry but I found your posts in this thread deceptive and utterly tedious

Aw, shucks. I really don’t deserve such flattery.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Yes. Which is why I said in my last post, "I asked two questions meant to find out whom you were describing with the word “heresy.”

Aw, shucks. I really don’t deserve such flattery.

Here’s your next post:
“I asked whom you called a heretic,”

You didn’t because your first post:
“So the bishops are heretics?”

This is exactly the type of progressive argument style that nauseates and bores me. I actually have to paste your responses to prove you didn’t ask what you claim to ask. It’s pathetic and probably always executed in argument. Ask a friendly ghost…

 

[Ender]

So now the bishops are heretics?

I want to be very careful here but this is actually an interesting question. Clearly if by “the bishops”, is meant “all the bishops”, then the answer would be no. Is it unreasonable to ask, however, whether the proposal that some sexually active couples in irregular unions should be allowed to receive communion is a heresy? On the face of it it would appear so (unreasonable), since a seemingly large number of bishops apparently support this proposal, not to mention the fact that (it is alleged) the pope wants the question addressed. Those answers are not satisfactory.

That bishops have supported heresies in the past disproves the assertion that a bishop’s support for a proposal means it cannot be heretical. As to whether the pope has specifically requested that this question be addressed (again), color me doubtful. This has been asserted but I have yet to see it documented. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Here is the church’s definition of heresy:*(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
*The pope has already stated that the doctrines involved in this issue will not be changed, and if that is the case then there can be no heresy since nothing that must be believed will be altered. This leaves the question unanswered: if the doctrines do not change then how can someone be admitted to communion tomorrow who is doctrinally forbidden from receiving today? I understand that the “answer” to this question is that some “disciplines” may be altered, but no one has even suggested what discipline could be modified to get around a doctrinal prohibition.

That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that it is the doctrines that are being targeted for “modification”…which returns us to the question of whether the belief that one or more doctrines needs reversing constitutes heresy.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

This is exactly the type of progressive argument style that nauseates and bores me.

If Pepto Bismal would make a tablet with caffeine, it would sell like gang busters.

 

[Mongo]

Beg your pardon? Typically progressive? Acting dumb? Your attacks on my character aside, I asked whom you called a heretic, mostly out of shock that you’d describe bishops this way before they’ve even done anything of significance at this synod:

So no, I don’t “get it.” K?

I am curious whether you think the bishops have always been orthodox. There was a time when the majority were Arian.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I want to be very careful here but this is actually an interesting question. Clearly if by “the bishops”, is meant “all the bishops”, then the answer would be no. Is it unreasonable to ask, however, whether the proposal that some sexually active couples in irregular unions should be allowed to receive communion is a heresy? On the face of it it would appear so (unreasonable), since a seemingly large number of bishops apparently support this proposal, not to mention the fact that (it is alleged) the pope wants the question addressed. Those answers are not satisfactory.

That bishops have supported heresies in the past disproves the assertion that a bishop’s support for a proposal means it cannot be heretical. As to whether the pope has specifically requested that this question be addressed (again), color me doubtful. This has been asserted but I have yet to see it documented. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Here is the church’s definition of heresy:*(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
*The pope has already stated that the doctrines involved in this issue will not be changed, and if that is the case then there can be no heresy since nothing that must be believed will be altered. This leaves the question unanswered: if the doctrines do not change then how can someone be admitted to communion tomorrow who is doctrinally forbidden from receiving today? I understand that the “answer” to this question is that some “disciplines” may be altered, but no one has even suggested what discipline could be modified to get around a doctrinal prohibition.

That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that it is the doctrines that are being targeted for “modification”…which returns us to the question of whether the belief that one or more doctrines needs reversing constitutes heresy.

Ender

Excellent post but I left it at the stage of trying to explain the poster’s OWN posts to her which is usually how I sign off with progressives.
Next you’ll be taken to the Stalingrad of liberal obsessions and get called a “phobe” of some kind. They seem to follow a global approach so I assume there’s some sort of schooling or maybe it’s a lack of education and ideological subversion via CNN and ABC that works as well. Your guess is as good as mine.

Talking about Arianism and historical fact is appropriate to any debate BUT the other common trait liberals have is that 2015 is the “right side of history”. So anything in the past is “irrelevant” and might cause "triggering’. I could write an essay on liberal approaches to “debates” but everyone knows it now so hopefully PC nazism has had its day…

 

[gracepoole]

Here’s your next post:
“I asked whom you called a heretic,”

You didn’t because your first post:
“So the bishops are heretics?”

This is exactly the type of progressive argument style that nauseates and bores me. I actually have to paste your responses to prove you didn’t ask what you claim to ask. It’s pathetic and probably always executed in argument. Ask a friendly ghost…

Excellent post but I left it at the stage of trying to explain the poster’s OWN posts to her which is usually how I sign off with progressives.
Next you’ll be taken to the Stalingrad of liberal obsessions and get called a “phobe” of some kind. They seem to follow a global approach so I assume there’s some sort of schooling or maybe it’s a lack of education and ideological subversion via CNN and ABC that works as well. Your guess is as good as mine.

Talking about Arianism and historical fact is appropriate to any debate BUT the other common trait liberals have is that 2015 is the “right side of history”. So anything in the past is “irrelevant” and might cause "triggering’. I could write an essay on liberal approaches to “debates” but everyone knows it now so hopefully PC nazism has had its day…

I really don’t understand your need to disparage other posters. I easily could have written, “This is exactly the type of paranoid argument style that nauseates and bores me.” But I didn’t. Mostly because doing so is uncharitable. I’ve no idea why you keep hurling the word “progressive,” as though anything I’ve written in this thread is quintessentially aligned with that perspective. If anything, I’ve noted that Church teaching can’t change. I also don’t know what liberalism, political correctness, or Nazism have to do with this subject. I would suggest, however, that reading comprehension is an invaluable skill here. The question mark usually indicates a question being asked.

 

[gracepoole]

I want to be very careful here but this is actually an interesting question. Clearly if by “the bishops”, is meant “all the bishops”, then the answer would be no. Is it unreasonable to ask, however, whether the proposal that some sexually active couples in irregular unions should be allowed to receive communion is a heresy? On the face of it it would appear so (unreasonable), since a seemingly large number of bishops apparently support this proposal, not to mention the fact that (it is alleged) the pope wants the question addressed. Those answers are not satisfactory.

That bishops have supported heresies in the past disproves the assertion that a bishop’s support for a proposal means it cannot be heretical. As to whether the pope has specifically requested that this question be addressed (again), color me doubtful. This has been asserted but I have yet to see it documented. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Here is the church’s definition of heresy:*(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
*The pope has already stated that the doctrines involved in this issue will not be changed, and if that is the case then there can be no heresy since nothing that must be believed will be altered. This leaves the question unanswered: if the doctrines do not change then how can someone be admitted to communion tomorrow who is doctrinally forbidden from receiving today? I understand that the “answer” to this question is that some “disciplines” may be altered, but no one has even suggested what discipline could be modified to get around a doctrinal prohibition.

That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to suspect that it is the doctrines that are being targeted for “modification”…which returns us to the question of whether the belief that one or more doctrines needs reversing constitutes heresy.

Ender

I am curious whether you think the bishops have always been orthodox. There was a time when the majority were Arian.

It IS an interesting question. I would base a charge of heresy on evidence only, and so far, the synod hasn’t given me any evidence for such a charge. There definitely have been problematic bishops in the past. But so far, the work of this synod as described in various outlets seems to be focused on considering approaches to teaching the same doctrine, not changing doctrine. I’m not sure how the college of bishops can accomplish this, though I do place a good amount of faith in their levels of education and faith. I do believe they were chosen as bishops for a reason. I know that others might not share this optimism. I guess we’ll have to wait for the final relatio but I don’t see much coming from this. I realize there are others here and elsewhere who are making very different assumptions. Again, I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

 

[Ender]

It IS an interesting question. I would base a charge of heresy on evidence only, and so far, the synod hasn’t given me any evidence for such a charge.

I agree, but I think this is probably due to the fact that no concrete proposals have so far been made (publicly).

But so far, the work of this synod as described in various outlets seems to be focused on considering approaches to teaching the same doctrine, not changing doctrine.

I am less convinced about this than you. Yes, they talk about changing disciplines not doctrines, but no one has suggested how to change a discipline to permit the reception of communion that doesn’t eviscerate the doctrine behind it.

I’m not sure how the college of bishops can accomplish this, though I do place a good amount of faith in their levels of education and faith. I do believe they were chosen as bishops for a reason. I know that others might not share this optimism.

Given that there are bishops on diametrically opposite sides of this question the idea that something should be given credence simply because a bishop has proposed it carries very little weight. What disappoints me is the complete lack of specificity. It is also what makes me suspicious of the reasons behind that lack.

Ender