Ignatius

[CThomas]

Nita, how do you respond to someone like Gerry Matatics, who uses that very form of argument to conclude that the recent Popes and bishops are invalid (because they teach departures from Catholic teaching established in earlier official documents)?

CThomas

 

[NotWorthy]

So if your bishop is teaching something you think is in opposition to the official Church position how do you know who is right.

As stated, we can look to the Catechism. We can ask the Bishop, or a priest for that matter what is the basis for his teaching.

What if they’re isn’t an official Church position? Everything isn’t spelled out word for word in a papal or conciliar decree.

If it’s not taught, then how can I refute his reasoning. But, since I can’t wrap my little mind around this, can you give me an example?

 

[Paisius]

As stated, we can look to the Catechism. We can ask the Bishop, or a priest for that matter what is the basis for his teaching.

In my example the bishop is the one teaching heresy so you can’t ask him.

If it’s not taught, then how can I refute his reasoning. But, since I can’t wrap my little mind around this, can you give me an example?

The history of the Church is filled with examples of individual bishops teaching heresy. An easy example is Nestorius. Before he was officially condemned did the laity under his care have an obligation to obey him? If not on what authority could they disobey him?

 

[NotWorthy]

In my example the bishop is the one teaching heresy so you can’t ask him.

The history of the Church is filled with examples of individual bishops teaching heresy. An easy example is Nestorius. Before he was officially condemned did the laity under his care have an obligation to obey him? If not on what authority could they disobey him?

I don’t know, but I can ask my priest, although I’m pretty sure he wasn’t alive during the Nestorian Heresy.

Actually, you bring up a good point. All the major heresies of the Church originated from within the Church. What happened when a heresy was questioned? It was probably brought up before councils - first local, and if unresolved, it went up the ladder.

I think the Pope would have been used as a last resort, for it seems that these things should be worked out among the many and the Pope’s authority only used when the many could not come to an equitable understanding.

 

[Paisius]

I don’t know, but I can ask my priest, although I’m pretty sure he wasn’t alive during the Nestorian Heresy.

Actually, you bring up a good point. All the major heresies of the Church originated from within the Church. What happened when a heresy was questioned? It was probably brought up before councils - first local, and if unresolved, it went up the ladder.

I think the Pope would have been used as a last resort, for it seems that these things should be worked out among the many and the Pope’s authority only used when the many could not come to an equitable understanding.

So in the gray area between the time a bishop begins to teach the heresy and the time it is officially condemned can a lay person in good conscience disobey their bishop?

 

[NotWorthy]

So in the gray area between the time a bishop begins to teach the heresy and the time it is officially condemned can a lay person in good conscience disobey their bishop?

I simply don’t know. It would seem that one could nowadays quickly get corroborating evidence to support or refute a “new teaching”. Also, the “grey area” has become so much smaller over the last couple of millennium, don’t you think?

But to plainly answer your question. I don’t know. period.

Edited:
As I think on this, it seems that a mortal sin is a mortal sin only if one is aware of it. So if one is in doubt on whether your bishop is teaching falsehood, and only time will resolve the issue, it may be a good idea to follow the Bishop, although with both eyes open.

 

[utunumsint]

I’ve been giving renewed attention to the Church fathers, particularly the earliest apostolic Fathers. This led me to the following highly speculative question. Reading the letters of Ignatius, two key points that seem to recur with frequency in his writings seem to be (very roughly): (1) obey your biship, and (2) stay away from heresy. This led me to wonder: What do you think Ignatius would tell someone to do if his bishop openly taught, say, docetism or Judaizing (to pick two concrete examples of heresy that Ignatius emphatically warned against)?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have about this.

CThomas

I’m not sure what Ignatius would say, but the earliest incident of one Bishop threatening to excommunicate another bishop is described in Eusebius.

The issue was over the time when Easter could be celebrated. The Bishops in Asia Minor were celebrating it on one day, and the rest of the church was celebrating it on a Sunday. Councils were convened, and letters were exchanged between the different synods, and the Asian bishops lead by Polycrates were told by Victor, the Bishop of Rome, to change their custom. Polycrates refused, and Victor excommunicated or threatened to excommunicate them.

Irenaeus sent him a letter on behalf of the bishops in Gaul and admonishes Victor not to break the peace lightly over a matter of custom and provides the example of another bishop of Rome dealing cordially with Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna, with regard to the same issue.

From this we can see that peace in the church was highly esteemed, but councils could be convened to settle issues that had to do with renegade bishops.

This event would have taken place around 80 years after Ignatius’ death.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Nita]

Nita, how do you respond to someone like Gerry Matatics, who uses that very form of argument to conclude that the recent Popes and bishops are invalid (because they teach departures from Catholic teaching established in earlier official documents)?

CThomas

I’m not familiar with the points on which Gerry Matatics conflicts with Church teaching. Each point would have to be looked at separately to see where his reasoning went wrong. I only know he has veered off to the very right wing.

In a general way, I would say the one error often made is to take a teaching and somehow insert the concept of “only” into one’s understanding of it when in fact that word, or its equivalent, is not used in the document.
(Similar to the way Protestants insert the concept of “only” in their understanding of being saved by faith.)

Another error is failure to see or accept that there can be development in doctrine; a more complete comprehension and/or progression of truths given in earlier documents.

If I were responding to Gerry Matatics, I would try to see where he took the wrong turn in his thinking and then point it out to him.

Nita

 

[Nita]

What if they’re isn’t an official Church position? Everything isn’t spelled out word for word in a papal or conciliar decree.

If there isn’t an official Church teaching one is free to speculate. But, one has to be watchful that none of the concepts involved in the speculation, violate teachings that have been infallibly defined.

Nita