Heresy in the Roman Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungApologist3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have been over this…that video has many flaws.
1st. No proof that the Tango was performed during Mass.
2nd. “The Clown Mass”…did you actually see the puppets performing during Mass? No.
Your example holds little if any legitimate weight.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe most people will lie simply to make themselves look slightly better, especially if they are so called “winners” of history.
Really? Would you like me to quote from “The Aboriginal Period,” in my U.S. History book? It was copyrighted in 1895.
Or the ancient civilizations who boasted on their monuments of their greatness?
 
Last edited:
The Orthodox Churches are not heretical as a whole, but on an individual level many Orthodox are material heretics.
Do you have any basis to believe that this is more common with them than for Catholics?
All Orthodox are material schismatics to begin with - some are also material heretics.
You are directly contradicting Papal teaching by stating this.

Please do your research before making this offensive and incorrect statement again.
I’ve personally seen Orthodox who say the IC is heretical…
I’ve encountered it–and every single time, it is not the notion of sinlessness but the unilateral assertion of dogma, rather than the content, that they mean.
I’ve seen many “Orthodox” who love to degrade the “Western schismatic heretics.”
Translate the Filioque back into greek with the original words, and most RC theologians fluent in greek will also call it heretical.

And in fairness, it was the west, not the east, that initiated the schism (although it was honored more in the breach than in practice for abut four centuries).

hawk
 
Source? I don’t see how to teach that the Orthodox, who actively deny the filioque , are in heresy is in contradiction of the teaching of the Church.
Source for which? On the issues of the filioque, run through older threads on the byzcath.org forums. It’s long and involved.

In short, the Filioque is more a linguistic issue than theological :headbang:

The greek word used in the creed means that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father. The Roman church teaches that the Spirit also proceeds temporally through the Son. Load these into one verb, and of course the greek-speaking world has conniptions, as the notion that the Spirt originates in the Son is indeed heretical. (OK, for the unfair cheap shot at the trade: see, the vernacular is a bad idea: if Rome hadn’t started using the vernacular in the third and fourth centuries, and had stayed with the traditional greek, we never would have had this problem! 🤣🤨)
Either way, I suppose I just never considered that communion could be broken without heresy occurring.
Quite possible, and downright common.

The most recent example is the RO and GO, over the Estonian Orthodox Church and the GO (i.e., the Patriarch of Constantinople bringing EO reps to an inter-Orthodox meeting.
I suppose that happened at the time we had three “popes.”
Parts of the RCC would probably have been out of communion with other parts–and that was the least of the RCC’s problems at the tie . . .
So does this mean that when a church gets a new patriarch, communion is broken until he requests communion with Rome? And that also, it’s not 100% necessary to be in communion with Rome to be considered Catholic by Rome?
Not so much “broken” as “not yet”. But communicants generally would not be denied the Eucharist at such times either.

And until, for example, the new Melkite Patriarch’s representative to Rome gets there and is accepted, the two churches aren’t quite either in or out of communion.

“Interregnums” [ouch, that plural hurts!] have long been odd legal issues (and, as an Economist, I’d use the term for the US economy from roughly 2008-16, between the recession and the actual recovery).

hawk
 
Just hypothetically speaking, if that were to happen, I think the biggest schism in 1000 years would ensue.
 
The problem is who has authority to say that the pope taught heresy?
The short version of the answer (trust me, you need theologians for the long answer!) is that the pope cannot be judged.

However, if the Pope were to fall into heresy, hold e would, ipso facto, no longer be Pope. The cardinals can hold a hearing into whether or not a specific individual is still the Pope! (and, yes, this is _Jesuitical! )

hawk
 
Considering that marriage is a holy Sacrament and there is support for the sacrilege of same sex “marriage” among nominal Catholics, I’d say Seagull’s concern is valid. It is a litmus issue, as is abortion on demand (which some nominal Catholics also support).
 
SJWs put their cause celebres above Church teachings and natural and divine law
 
Considering that marriage is a holy Sacrament and there is support for the sacrilege of same sex “marriage” among nominal Catholics, I’d say Seagull’s concern is valid. It is a litmus issue, as is abortion on demand (which some nominal Catholics also support).
I think it is not a good thing to have a litmus test to help you decide the heart and soul of your fellow Catholics.
 
I decide no such thing. I will simply say that one who supports the overthrow of the Sacrament of Marriage, or who supports abortion on demand, is not a Catholic.
'Nuff said.
 
Really? Would you like me to quote from “The Aboriginal Period,” in my U.S. History book? It was copyrighted in 1895.
Or the ancient civilizations who boasted on their monuments of their greatness?
If you read my post I didn’t claim that history has never been lied about, I acknowledge that. But to claim that the vast majority of what is commonly accepted as historical facts are also lied about is simply ludicrous. How do you know the book you mentioned is a lie? Is it not because it has been exposed by modern historians as such?

I have faith in the field of history as a science, capable of discovering what is true and what is false. You clearly agree, since you bring up an example of what you know to be false history.
 
I think some clarification is needed here. You state if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would no longer be Pope, which is true. But then you say the pope cannot be judged, as though no one is allowed to speak up should they see a pope fall into heresy. This is not the case.

If we were to see a man rob a bank in broad daylight, we can openly refer to the man as a thief even before the law catches up with him. By doing so we are not making an “official” judgment of the man, we are simply stating the obvious. In the meantime we would have nothing to do with the man and could warn others not to leave their valuables exposed when he is around because he has shown himself to be a thief. Later when the law catches up with the man, they will make the official judgment, officially declaring him a thief, something the public already knows.

Heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine. If we were to see a pope manifestly doubt or deny a Catholic doctrine, we can certainly point it out, and that is not considered judging him. A future General Council would make the official judgment.
 
Because I believe the Reformation-age Catholics being wrong on any number of theological points. Thus in apostacy rather than heresy, I guess.
I guess you don’t understand what apostasy means. It is the total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed. In short, for example, apostasy would be a Christian becoming a muslim.
 
Since Muslims and Christians worship the same Creator, a Christian converting to Islam would not be committing a “total rejection” since he would still be worshiping God.
 
Since Muslims and Christians worship the same Creator, a Christian converting to Islam would not be committing a “total rejection” since he would still be worshiping God.
Not true. Apostasy is when a baptised Christian totally rejects their Christian faith. Muslims do not recognise Christ as God.
 
Source? I don’t see how to teach that the Orthodox, who actively deny the filioque, are in heresy is in contradiction of the teaching of the Church.

Either way, I suppose I just never considered that communion could be broken without heresy occurring. I suppose that happened at the time we had three “popes.”

So does this mean that when a church gets a new patriarch, communion is broken until he requests communion with Rome? And that also, it’s not 100% necessary to be in communion with Rome to be considered Catholic by Rome?
Eastern Canon Law (CCEO, from St. Pope John Paul II, Motu Proprio AD TUENDAM FIDEM, 1998)
Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
 
Heresy is defined as the doubt or denial of a Catholic doctrine. If we were to see a pope manifestly doubt or deny a Catholic doctrine, we can certainly point it out, and that is not considered judging him. A future General Council would make the official judgment.
When you say “if WE were to see a pope Manifestly doubt…”
Who do you mean by “we”? Who defines when the doubt is MANIFEST?
Keep in mind many Protestants, and many Catholics on the Left and Right, already have claimed the current pope, and many previous popes and councils, are in heresy. So if “we” decide that as well, we have to stand in line.

If you say “Well, if the bishops determine that…”, the first problem is that, how many votes does it take for “the bishops” to determine anything? 51%? 100%? Do you think you could get 100% of the bishops today to agree on anything?

The second problem is that, who constitutes “the bishops”? Does Bishop Fellay get a vote? or Bishop Williamson - I would assume he already considers Pope Francis a heretic.
If you say only the bishops in unity with the pope get a vote, then if a bishop dissents from the current pope enough to label the pope a heretic, would he still be considered in union with the pope?

The whole thing about “the Church itself is infallible, even apart from the pope” simply is not realistic. It is an agenda pushed by the Left, and also recently by websites on the Right.
 
Last edited:
If you look in any traditional book on Catholic apologetics it is very clear in stating that Catholics and Muslims do NOT worship the same God. Catholics worship a God made up of the Trinity, Muslims do not.
 
I think some clarification is needed here. You state if a pope were to fall into heresy, he would no longer be Pope, which is true. But then you say the pope cannot be judged, as though no one is allowed to speak up should they see a pope fall into heresy. This is not the case.
It is also not what I said 🙂
As I did say, while the Pope cannot be judged, the Cardinals can convene an inquiry into whether our nt the man in question is still the Pope.

A council would not be required (for that matter, I’m not sure an RC council can be called by anyone but the Pope save drumming an interregnum, so they’d need the preceding to decide whether or not there was a pope or whether or not hey could call a council . . )

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top