S
shoewindow3000
Guest
IF you knew that the Catholic Church was the true church, but you become Protestant anyways, does that mean that you are sinning?
Would it be the sin of heresy?
Would it be the sin of heresy?
- Status
L
liquidpele
Guest
It appears you would indeed be a heretic by at least one definition:
google.com/search?q=define%3Aheresy
However, I think it would be silly to be considered a sin. It’s not like Jesus was around when the church started and specified such things.
google.com/search?q=define%3Aheresy
However, I think it would be silly to be considered a sin. It’s not like Jesus was around when the church started and specified such things.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Everything about Catholicism seems foolish to those who don’t know God.
Heresy is a sin because it is the rejection of a saving truth. Sin is rejection of God, and God is the Truth itself.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
All sin is of presumption. “Let the Spirit be the guide”. No presumption is the better good for every situation save to try to the best of your deepest heart and mind.
Did you truly try your best? Are you still? How could any more be asked of you?
Clarify and verify all you can concerning the true hopes and threats to the greater harmony and nothing you do could be of lesser sin.
Did you truly try your best? Are you still? How could any more be asked of you?
Clarify and verify all you can concerning the true hopes and threats to the greater harmony and nothing you do could be of lesser sin.
L
liquidpele
Guest
That assumes that the church is the saving truth instead of the scripture.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But the question is, does Catholicism also seem foolish to those who do?
Heresy, to most people, means that you have willingly attacked the a Church, not merely turned away, but turned against.
Did Jesus turn against the Temple of God by living among the outcasts from that Temple?
Was that Temple right in demanding separation and condemnation of those who cannot see their light?
Look at how many cannot see the light of Catholicism. Where in lies the folly, in the people, or in the Church/Temple?
What man or Church can proclaim, “I am the Holy” and still yet not be seen as such?
“Judge not lest ye be judged”. Do you think that only applies to the people?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
It would seem to be a sin against one’s conscience, but I don’t know that the sin would be heresy:
To reject the Church when one believes it is the true Church that Jesus founded would be inexplicable to me. If there were mitigating circumstances (for example, if the person is a teenager and their parents would severely disapprove), then perhaps one’s culpability would be diminished or removed. But it’s certainly not something one wants to be in the habit of doing!
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I would think the greater sin would be found in the Protestant Church that accepted a member who actually believes the CC is the true Church.
Luke 14:26:
Luke 14:26:
But then, is it to be that all members are disciples?
A
Alindawyl
Guest
I don’t know if it’s heresy either as I’m no canon lawyer. It seems like it, but the situation is presented in a rather strange way.
Regardless of whether or not it’s heresy, it’s objectively sinful because the truth is being rejected. It’s probably formally sinful as well due to the person in question knowing the truth and voluntarily choosing something else.
I can’t for the life of me imagine a scenario in which that choice would make sense, even if we’re talking about a teenager. If a teen sees their parents convert to a different religion, one they don’t accept, they should be willing to stand for the truth against their parents. The higher authority always takes precedence in a conflict. The truth is not something. It is someone: Jesus Christ, the high priest of the Church.
Attend whatever services their parents attend? Yes, because they are still under the authority of their parents. But they should clearly state that they do not accept this new faith which mom and dad have chosen because they do not believe it to be true. Disagreement should always be in a respectful manner, of course.
Remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34-38.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
Harsh words, but true words. We have an obligation to choose the truth even if it results in severe disapproval from our parents. Or from our children.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Yeah… what He said.
P
promethius
Guest
Let’s look at it logically: Premise A of your statement is that the catholic church is the true church. Premise B is that you know it is the true church. Premise D is church teaching: to knowingly reject God’s will is sin.
If, then, you become protestant whilst KNOWING that the catholic church is the true church, then you are actively rejecting God’s will, and as such are condemned in sin.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Scripture is a collection of writings which can be, and have been, interpreted in many different ways. That is why there are so many different shristian sects. So how can Scripture alone be the saving truth?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Providing a dictionary at the beginning would have helped.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
um …yes he was, matt 16:18, Christ instituted the Church.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Helped to increase confusion! People still wouldn’t know whether the meaning of a passage is literal, symbolic, prophetic, historical, allegorical, typological…Providing a dictionary at the beginning would have helped.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
???
That’s the point in having a dictionary, to clarify the intent of the speaker at the time (preferably written by the speaker himself).
T
tonyrey
Guest
The point is that, no matter how many definitions there are, the written word can always be misinterpreted. In fact the more definitions there are, the more confused people become! There is no adequate substitute for living members of a community who teach by example as well as instruction… and inspire far more than any collection of books.???
That’s the point in having a dictionary, to clarify the intent of the speaker at the time (preferably written by the speaker himself).
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
It is the books and their implied meanings (made more accurate by definition attempts) that ensures the continuance and adds to the momentum of those people doing the explaining.
Without the written word, the passed word from generation to generation becomes more easily misrepresented.
A dictionary is not a guarantee. It is merely more solid evidence of the intent. But it certainly does not detract and cause more confusion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I entirely agree with you. Both the Scriptures and the Church are necessary. It was the Church which selected the writings which constitute the Old and New Testaments.
A dictionary is composed by human beings who give their own definitions. What happens if they disagree - as they have done so many times?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
You are probably thinking of a later dictionary to define earlier words. I am referring to a dictionary provided, for example, by the very scribes who wrote Genisis so as to further explain their own use of the words in that writing.
It wouldn’t matter if the words they used and defined agreed with anyone else. It would explain their intent regardless of the accurate use of the words by anyone else’s authority.
Perhaps a better word would be “lexicon” as it tends to refer to a specific writing rather than general use of the time.
- Status