Please evaluate and tell me if I am wrong

[scylla]

Here is a bit of thinking I have been doing, after going to an RCIA class which had quite a bit of heresy taught.
Please tell me if I am missing something in my thinking.

Let me make a couple points,

If someone willingly sins they are responsible for that sin, such as being ordained as a priestess.
They are deliberately being disobedient and defining the belief system to their own desires. The “sin of Satan”, or “I will not do thy will, but my will.”

Now desiring to sin, such as willing the death of someone is commiting the sin in your heart. So it is just as bad since you desire for that sin to come about. This is evident when someone expresses the desire for that sin to happen, even if they have someone else do it for them.

Then teaching that that sin is ok, is giving permission to do it. Now endorsing the action of that sin is even worse and would be the same as doing the action.

So anyone who participates in the ordination of women is automatically excommunicated. What about those who endorse the action even if they are not present. They would also be excommunicated or just commiting grave sins.

Am I being too extreme or are others being too wishy washy?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[scylla]

Anyone? Anyone?

I am not stating this to condemn others, just to illustrate how serious our actions and thoughts are.
Jesus said “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble”

So promoting teachings contrary to the faith, even in a ecumenical way is a horrible sin, as it is misleading people to believe falsehood as truth. I am not saying that it is right to denounce someone teaching falsehood right there and then.

Now to not answer is much more prudent and then set aside time to explain honest, if the issue is too serious to explain in a soundbite.

Does anyone disagree with me?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[jbuck919]

I am wondering how, if you are going to RCIA, you happen already to know that much of what they’re teaching is heresy.

And no, it is not wrong personally to revisit or discretely to debate issues, especially ones involving matters of church discipline, though for purposes of discernment it is often even acceptable to bring into a suitable open context (i.e.,with a confessor or other spiritual advisor) matters of a deeper theological nature. When we see the term “thoughts, words, and deeds” in a confessional formulary, the “thoughts” part means entertaiing thoughts of moral wrong; it does not mean exercising the normal human realm of doubt and inquiry.

 

[corvidae]

I would say it is grave matterr, but I will leave the gravity of the sin up to God to decide.

I would also say it depends on the gravity of the sin that is being, even passively encouraged. For example, passively encouraging something may not be as wrong as actively encouraging it (though Pope Felix III would disagree with me) However, both encourage it. Do the people have full knowledge of why it is wrong. Do the people have consent of will to make the judgement. Are the people passively encouragin (i.e. not speaking out against it) to achieve something with double effect (that would be the case of prudence, it would be imprudent to call someone out in such a matter that it causes more harm than the thing itself)
These all muddy the waters,

But I can tell you that it is ok to speak out about not speaking out. Especially if people who are in authority are not speaking out.

It is always betterr to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do not know about it, or are not informed enough, and then try to instruct the ignorant.

For a long while, I tried to live my life by this,

Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it. and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men – when we can do it – is no less a sin than to encourage them.
-Pope St. Felix III

I learned prudence, by my attempts to confound evil, I drove some into further evils. Now with prudence I try to live it out.

A lone Raven

 

[Damascus]

Dont confuse Church teaching with disobedient people.

Dont worry about them, worry about your understanding of Church teaching and realize there will always be reprobates in the body.

 

[quasimodo]

could you repeat the question. it was unclear to me

 

[scylla]

I am a sponsor.

I don’t want to cause confusion by speaking up, yet I am stuck in the middle as my friend who I am sponsoring keeps getting mixed teachings. I am trying to give consistant explanations to the faith and the people in RCIA are teaching heresy.
I am very involved in the parish and wont leave as our parish needs a lot of help.

I understand that it is up to God to decide, so I cannot judge them, but I must defend truth.

So is my first post logically correct.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[corvidae]

I would explain the what the Church really teaches, to the person you are sponsoring, and then send a letter or write an email or whatever, just don’t do it publically to the people who are teaching this. If they do not respond, write the priest, and if he will not respond write the bishop.

Do this privately, do not make a spectacle out of it, and I would also say, pray about it.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut may not be well recieved. I was a volunteer assistant to a youth minister and was asked not to return when I emailed the head youth minister with some things that I thought were not good teaching (i.e. falsehoods about the faith). I was asked not to return, and the parish priest supported the head youth minister’s decision, because I was not being supportive.

I felt I had to stand up for truth, as I am sure you are feeling. It may require sacrafices though.

A lone Raven

 

[tee_eff_em]

Here is a bit of thinking I have been doing, after going to an RCIA class which had quite a bit of heresy taught.
Please tell me if I am missing something in my thinking.

Let me make a couple points,

If someone willingly sins they are responsible for that sin, such as being ordained as a priestess.
They are deliberately being disobedient and defining the belief system to their own desires. The “sin of Satan”, or “I will not do thy will, but my will.”

Now desiring to sin, such as willing the death of someone is commiting the sin in your heart. So it is just as bad since you desire for that sin to come about. This is evident when someone expresses the desire for that sin to happen, even if they have someone else do it for them.

“Desire” is a tricky word. A simple temptation is not in itself sinful. But nurturing, encouraging, and dwelling on a sinful desire probably is.

Then teaching that that sin is ok, is giving permission to do it. Now endorsing the action of that sin is even worse and would be the same as doing the action.

Better if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea than to lead one of these little ones [literal or figurative] astray.

So anyone who participates in the ordination of women is automatically excommunicated. What about those who endorse the action even if they are not present. They would also be excommunicated or just commiting grave sins.

Am I being too extreme or are others being too wishy washy?

Is your last sentence, *“They would also be excommunicated or just commiting grave sins,” *a statement or a question? I would say dwelling on such a grave offense is possibly sinful, but I don’t think there is any such thing as a “material excommuncate” – I think one only excommunicates himself by actual actions.

For instance, during the attempted ordinations of women last summer, the Diocese of Pittsburgh was quite consistent in issuing a statement warning of the consequence for those participating, well in advance of such participation, surely with the hope of drawing back to the faith anyone contemplating such .

:twocents:
tee

 

[rwoehmke]

The thought is the “mother of the action” and if entertained and persistent in becomes a sin in itself. Jesus’s comments about lustful thoughts being the equivalent of adultry would be one example. Despite that fact people who have these sins of thought, omission or whatever cannot be presumed to have sinned mortally as you have no way of observing their conscience, which rules whether malformed or not.

Just what heresy is being taught? Many teachers today do not really know the truth and stumble in the dark. In most cases I don’t think they take these teaching jobs to push a private agenda, but to help. It is a problem created by the discontinuity in proper catachesis that followed Vatican II. Today we are paying the price of our own neglect of the basics.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Scylla, where Jesus taught about sins of the heart, like looking on a woman lustfully, he was tying that sin into the fruit of the flesh or fruit of our sin nature. So, is one’s desire related to the sin nature or is one’s desire holy depends on if it relates to the flesh nature or fruit of the spirit, read Gal 5 to search out our hearts. Also, we need not search out our heart alone, the Holy Spirit also searches out our hearts Rom 8, so it is wise to ask the Holy Spirit to make one sensitive to one’s inner being.

 

[scylla]

I am not sure I follow you Daniel, could you clarify your statement please.

Since we are not forced to sin, every sin is a concious decision that is ignoring or rejecting God’s will.
We have temptation and sometimes sin is desireable yet that doesn’t force us to sin.

My point was willingly holding a position that endorses eaches sin is pretty much the same as committing that sin.

tee_eff_em:
This is not really a question as so much as a statement to be examined. Am I wrong here? This what I am asking.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Eileen_T]

I was going to post, but with my high blood pressure I might have a stroke!

Speak up.

 

[tee_eff_em]

tee_eff_em:
This is not really a question as so much as a statement to be examined.

My :twocents: examining the statement is that it is not a useful statement, which makes it difficult to make any other answer to you:

They would also be excommunicated or just commiting grave sins.

It is not useful to compare the commission of grave sin with excommunication in this way. The latter is a (narrow?) subset of the former, but the remedies differ remarkably. It is reasonable to demand that instructors of the faith not be excommunicate; Is it reasonable to demand that they be sinless?

:twocents:
tee

 

[USMC]

Here is a bit of thinking I have been doing, after going to an RCIA class which had quite a bit of heresy taught.
Please tell me if I am missing something in my thinking.

Let me make a couple points,

If someone willingly sins they are responsible for that sin, such as being ordained as a priestess.
They are deliberately being disobedient and defining the belief system to their own desires. The “sin of Satan”, or “I will not do thy will, but my will.”

Now desiring to sin, such as willing the death of someone is commiting the sin in your heart. So it is just as bad since you desire for that sin to come about. This is evident when someone expresses the desire for that sin to happen, even if they have someone else do it for them.

Then teaching that that sin is ok, is giving permission to do it. Now endorsing the action of that sin is even worse and would be the same as doing the action.

So anyone who participates in the ordination of women is automatically excommunicated. What about those who endorse the action even if they are not present. They would also be excommunicated or just commiting grave sins.

Am I being too extreme or are others being too wishy washy?

God Bless
Scylla

Your line of thought is correction; however, I think you went a little to far in the last point. It is true that anyone who endorses women priests is a heretic; and it is true that a heretic is not a Catholic; but in order to be ipos facto excommunicated, it requires that an excommunicatable offence be committed. I don’t think it is an excommunicatable offense to merely endorse women’s ordination. Endorsing it would make a person a heretic, but I don’t think that, in and of itself, brings the penalty of excommunication.

Usually, to be excommunicated, it requires an act being performed, not merely the intent. The intent can make someone a heretic and cut them off from the Church, but it does not bring the penalty of excommunication

Not to get the thread off track, but I want to make a comment on something that you said. You wrote “Then teaching that that sin is ok, is giving permission to do it. Now endorsing the action of that sin is even worse and would be the same as doing the action.”

That is precisely the problem with the hierarchy of the Church teaching religious liberty. Religious liberty is an error that has been condemned by the magisterium many times; however, for the past four decades or so, even the hierarchy itself has began to teach this error. Those who teach that people are free to practice a false religion and committing the same sin as those who teach that women are free to be ordained as a priest.

False religions are violations against the first commandment. Those who teach religious liberty are telling those of a false religion that it is completely fine for them to break the first commandment. The Church has always allowed for the mere “toleration” of false religions as being an evil that is put up with; but never has it taught that those of a false religion are completely free to practice their religion. To do so is to condone that evil, which is an offense against God and a violation of “the first and greatest commandment”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ok, Gal 5 tells us about the fruit of the spirit, love, joy peace, and the fruit of the flesh.

One could desire something out of an evil motive or out of a just motive.

There is nothing wrong with desiring a wife. But, it is wrong to desire to use a woman. Both, desire a person, but the motive of one is just while the desire of the other is sinful.

So, I am saying make yourself aware of the fruits of the spirit and the fruits of our sin nature in Galations chapter five.

And, when you have a desire, be honest with ourselves, is this a desire that satisfliss our sin nature or satisfies a just, godly fruit.