Heresy In The Hearing of The Faithful

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xpi22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

Xpi22

Guest
Have you ever heard a priest preach heresy in a Catholic Church and, if so, how did you handle it?
 
Maybe. I was once at a Mass where an elderly priest said in his homily that it’s very difficult to understand how the body and blood of Christ could be truly present in the Eucharist, and so it was acceptable to believe it was there symbolically.

I wasn’t sure I understood him and asked someone after Mass if I heard it right. The guy I asked said he heard the same thing, so . . . . .

But I never did anything about it.
 
Last edited:
I have off hand heard these four untruths preached:
1 that not everything Paul wrote is true. (I didn’t confront)
2 that the just Angels were not saved by grace (resisted correction)
3 that Mary was sinless from Her Birth (took correction like a saint)
4 that Jesus could have sinned by chose not to (hostilely resisted correction but later on seeing the evidence of the Church’s teaching, humbly assented to the faith.
 
Xpi22 said:
that Mary was sinless from Her Birth
Click to expand...
What’s untrue about that? The Church teaches Mary’s Immaculate Conception and subsequent personal sinlessness.
Xpi22 said:
that Jesus could have sinned by chose not to
Click to expand...
Did Jesus not have free will? He was like us in all things but sin, including in temptation. When he was tempted by the devil in the desert, how did he not sin unless by choosing not to sin?

-Fr ACEGC
 
Last edited:
No, I never have heard heresy. I attend a reverent OF Mass that inspires me to become a better person. No bells and whistles, just pure worship and lerning.
 
But that doesn’t answer my question. I know why he didn’t sin. I’m asking why saying he could have but chose not to is heretical.
 
1 Mary is immaculate from the first moment of Her Conception. That is the emphasis of the doctrine of Her perpetual sinlessness. I didn’t mention that that was preached on the Feast of te Immaculate Conception.
2 Our Lord has free will, but being in Person Divine,He could not sin. The doctrine of His Immpeccability and Inability to sin is well documented on line and any suggestion that His Free Will means that He could have sinned is a heresy condemned by the Church.
 
I didn’t see the rest of your second point. About temptation: in us temptation has an ally, our concupiscence. Christ did not have concupiscence. So by being tempted as we are in all things except sin, He showed us how to deal with temptation: use the word of God. Temptation is a proffer but, for us, after the fall, it is abetted by concupiscence. The account in the desert shows no struggle against temptation, but simply the spoken word itself from Scripture was enough to send the devil away. Good example.
 
The latter I grant you. The former correction though seems a bit nitpicky, unless the priest who said that intended to exclude Mary’s Immaculate Conception by saying she was sinless from birth. The terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If Mary is immaculately conceived, it follows that she is sinless from birth. Sometimes priests speak imprecisely in their homilies or speak in such a way as to emphasize one point or another, but this isn’t necessarily heresy. Be careful throwing that word around.
 
It is the constant teaching of the Church. If you Google the topic you will see the wealth of documentation declaring any teaching that Christ could have sinned but didn’t roundly condemned.
 
I agree, I’m just saying that someone speaking imprecisely here and there doesn’t constitute heresy, and we should be careful about judging people’s motives and throwing that around.
 
I agree, Father was not heretical just skipped the proper emphasis given the teaching of the Church which is that Mary was conceived without sin. Father understood when I explained.
 
I never judged Father’s motive. I only brought it up in this thread to ask others what their experience had been. The priest in question is a very good man and humble.
 
BTW, I accept your criticism. The priest in his homily on the Immaculate Conception was not in Heresy, but not precise. You are right, I was careless with the words heresy and untruth, I was imprecise 🙂
 
Last edited:
Xpi22 said:
2 Our Lord has free will, but being in Person Divine,He could not sin. The doctrine of His Immpeccability and Inability to sin is well documented on line and any suggestion that His Free Will means that He could have sinned is a heresy condemned by the Church.
Click to expand...
It depends on what is trying to be conveyed with the word “could.” I agree that there is no possible reality in which Jesus ends up sinning for the reasons you state. That said, it’s not as if Jesus’ human will involuntarily chose the good and to follow God’s will; it did so voluntarily. It was, in a sense, a capacity of the human nature that was assumed to sin, though it never could have actually occurred. The choice to not sin was free.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top