Pro-choice Catholics

[Iowa_Mike]

I think you have me confused with another member, Mike. I never had another arguement.

It has also been explained to you by myself and other members where your behavior has gone astray. It is off topic in this thread, so I think it would be more prudent to just leave it.

I guess we have one thing in common.

No, I did not, Mike. It is appropriate and incumbent upon you to point out any obvious departure from Catholic Teaching.

In the process, we do not have the perogative to judge them heretics.

Yes, I read them. Being excommunicated does not necessarily make one a heretic.

I never said he didn’t.

This is the crux of your problem, Mike. Yes, we must make judgements daily, and yes, when someone is outside the faith, especially one who claims to be Catholic, we must not only reject their views but make it clear that they have departed. This can (and should) be done without judging the person. We judge the actions, not the person.

Definitely, but judging a view is NOT equivalent to judging a person.

As I said, that topic is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to defend your right to classify others as heretics, you should probably start a new thread.

No. Just disobedient to the Church.

I am glad you reject his views, and I also condemn the disgrace he has brought. However, we cannot see his heart, and although we object to his actions, we cannot judge his soul.

What are the chances that there are two guanophores on the forum. You denial is telling.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[guanophore]

As I requested in an earlier post…please provide your citations that I have been improperly catechized?

Perhaps you were not? Perhaps your misbehavior cannot be excused by ignorance?

It seems you are the one who is being judmental.

I make judgments every day. I make them about behavior, and expressions, not the state of another’s soul. I am reading your posts. You are defending behavior that the Church says is wrong. I agree with the Church.

If you want to start a thread to discuss the catechism as it relates to judgment or any other subject I’ll be happy to give you some instruction. However this thread is about Pro-Choice Catholics.

Agreed.

 My position on this matter is clear.....In my judgment people who make pro-choice arguments are wrong.  If they are Catholics they cannot hide from the Church's loud and clear instruction on this matter.

I am glad we are in agreement on these points.

If they choose to persistently reject the Church's teachings....they are heretics. What is your judgment as it regards the issue?

I accept the instruction of the Apostles that we are not in a position to judge the interiority of people, including ourselves.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Ok Mike. I can see that you are not willing to recieve the Teaching of the Church in this matter. I commend you to your judgmental righteousness.

What matter, what teaching???..all you’'ve communicated thus far is you unsupported opinion. I’m awaiting some proofs as I requested.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[catharina]

What are the chances that there are two guanophores on the forum. You denial is telling.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Do you grasp the fact that Guanaphore (often), I (often) and PRMerger (at least once in Post # 401) are telling you: Catholics may NOT label other people as heretics? Why do you seem to insist that YOU are allowed to do so - while quoting Websters’s dictionary as support?

 

[catharina]

What matter, what teaching???..all you’'ve communicated thus far is you unsupported opinion. I’m awaiting some proofs as I requested.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Excuse me?
As I recall, you used Webster’s as part of your supportive teachings!

PLEASE!!!

The only unsupported opinion is yours.

 

[guanophore]

Fr. Drian publicly, persistantly and in spit of being a priest supported abortion in direct conflict with Church doctrine.

Indeed he did, however, we have no way of knowing the source of this. He could have a mental illness (delusional), he could have been decieved by the devil into believing he was right. We can’t establish obstinance. Only God can do that, He may reveal this to the Church through an inquiry, but that his not the job of the laity.

He was mandated to give up his political career by Pope John Paul II…

There has been a directive in place long before Drian that priests are not to serve in politics. This came out of the Reformation, to prevent the abuses of confusing spiritual authority for secular.

He fits the definition of heresy in the CCC and the defnition of heretic in the dictiionary.

Gob Bless,

Fortunately, the Church does not define terms by the modern American dictionary.

And even if he SEEMS to fit your definition of heresy, that does not afford you the freedom to classify him as such (except in your own mind, which is still a departure from apostolic Teaching but at least does not cause a public scandal)

 

[guanophore]

What are the chances that there are two guanophores on the forum. You denial is telling.

God Bless,
Iowa Mike

What does my denial of your self proclaimed right to call others heretics tell you?

What matter, what teaching???..all you’'ve communicated thus far is you unsupported opinion. I’m awaiting some proofs as I requested.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

If you cannot accept the words of Scripture and the Catechism on this matter, which you clearly do not, then I doubt there is any “proof” that will suffice.

At this point you are dangerously close to getting reported for namecalling.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

What does my denial of your self proclaimed right to call others heretics tell you?

If you cannot accept the words of Scripture and the Catechism on this matter, which you clearly do not, then I doubt there is any “proof” that will suffice.

At this point you are dangerously close to getting reported for namecalling.

Exactly what Scripture and Catechism references would they be…LOL. Please report me as I haven’t called you any names and I’ve invited you to PM…

Oh, and please get back to the thread subject, I’m happy to PM with you on your other opinions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[catharina]

Exactly what Scripture and Catechism references would they be…LOL. Please report me as I haven’t called you any names and I’ve invited you to PM…

Oh, and please get back to the thread subject, I’m happy to PM with you on your other opinions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Again: you used the DICTIONARY to support your claim???

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Indeed he did, however, we have no way of knowing the source of this. He could have a mental illness (delusional), he could have been decieved by the devil into believing he was right. We can’t establish obstinance. Only God can do that, He may reveal this to the Church through an inquiry, but that his not the job of the laity.

There has been a directive in place long before Drian that priests are not to serve in politics. This came out of the Reformation, to prevent the abuses of confusing spiritual authority for secular.
Iowa Mike;7506805:

He fits the definition of heresy in the CCC and the defnition of heretic in the dictiionary.

Gob Bless,

Fortunately, the Church does not define terms by the modern American dictionary.

And even if he SEEMS to fit your definition of heresy, that does not afford you the freedom to classify him as such (except in your own mind, which is still a departure from apostolic Teaching but at least does not cause a public scandal)

What Apostolic Teaching would that be???

Please look at earlier posts that report Pope John Paul II’s mandate. It’s much more recent than the reformation.

Fortunately the Church does define Heresy in the CCC and Heretic is simply a descriptive noun and is widely used by theologians and within the Church.

The facts are the facts…you should research Fr. Drinan. I think it would help you understand him and his positions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Again: you used the DICTIONARY to support your claim???

Catharina, the word heretic is simply a noun used to describe someone in heresy. Please look at CCC 2089.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Excuse me?
As I recall, you used Webster’s as part of your supportive teachings!

PLEASE!!!

The only unsupported opinion is yours.

Catharina,

Please respond to my post re: heretic usage as a noun to describe someone who is in heresy. I think CCC 2089 is completely clear, I posted the language in an earlier post. Did you see it?

As for the argument on heretic/heresy…it is not the purpose of this thread…would you like to start another thread to explore this in more depth.

From earlier posts I think we agree on abortion, no?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[PRmerger]

Fortunately the Church does define Heresy in the CCC and Heretic is simply a descriptive noun and is widely used by theologians and within the Church.

You have made the same error that Catholics did in the Inquistion, Mike. You confuse heresy with heretics.

Paraphrasing Peter Kreeft, the Inquisition **wrongly **condemned heretics in order to rightly remove heresies from the Church.

Modernists today **wrongly **accept heresies in order to rightly love the heretics.

Fortunately, the Church gets it correct in which it rightly loves the heretics and rightly condemns the heresies.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

You have made the same error that Catholics did in the Inquistion, Mike. You confuse heresy with heretics.

Paraphrasing Peter Kreeft, the Inquisition **wrongly **condemned heretics in order to rightly remove heresies from the Church.

Modernists today **wrongly **accept heresies in order to rightly love the heretics.

Fortunately, the Church gets it correct in which it rightly loves the heretics and rightly condemns the heresies.

This isn’t the inquisition and the CCC definition of heresy is accurate. The use of the noun heretic only describes someone in heresy. If one fits the definition in CCC 2089 and can be accurately described as a heretic.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Anyone want to start a thread on ‘heresy’. I’m game. Otherwise I think we do a disservice to others on this thread by getting off subject.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[catharina]

You have made the same error that Catholics did in the Inquistion, Mike. You confuse heresy with heretics.

Paraphrasing Peter Kreeft, the Inquisition **wrongly **condemned heretics in order to rightly remove heresies from the Church.

Modernists today **wrongly **accept heresies in order to rightly love the heretics.

Fortunately, the Church gets it correct in which it rightly loves the heretics and rightly condemns the heresies.

YES!

 

[catharina]

This isn’t the inquisition and the CCC definition of heresy is accurate. The use of the noun heretic only describes someone in heresy. If one fits the definition in CCC 2089 and can be accurately described as a heretic.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

The NAMING of individual heretics comes from Rome -
not from anyone in Iowa. You should know that.

Your preferred approach to name-calling is uncharitable and VERY casual.
Hope you can remove the habit from your life, the sooner the better.

 

[guanophore]

What Apostolic Teaching would that be???

The Apostle writes:

1 Cor 4:3-5
I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.

Parts of the human psyche are unconscious, and we can’t even know ourselves, much less the heart of another. We can think that we are right before God,but He may see it differently.

Because we cannot know all the things that are hidden in darkness, we cannot judge the persons only their actions. For all we know, he made a good contrition, and left what appears to us as heretical, or at the very least hypocritical, behind.

Please look at earlier posts that report Pope John Paul II’s mandate. It’s much more recent than the reformation.

The roots of it are in the Reformation. But yes, more recently it has become a mandated practice, especially for American Catholics.

Fortunately the Church does define Heresy in the CCC and Heretic is simply a descriptive noun and is widely used by theologians and within the Church.

Yes, it is fortunate that the Church defines heresy in the CCC. In that same document (link already posted above) the CCC explains why we cannot use this term with others.

The facts are the facts…you should research Fr. Drinan. I think it would help you understand him and his positions.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

No, thanks. I am investing my studies right now in those who were obedient to the Teachings of the Church.

One of my current subjects is Joan of Arc, who suffered at the hands of people like yourself, who felt they were qualified to judge the state of her soul.

 

[PRmerger]

This isn’t the inquisition and the CCC definition of heresy is accurate. The use of the noun heretic only describes someone in heresy. If one fits the definition in CCC 2089 and can be accurately described as a heretic.

Of course this isn’t the Inquisition. But you are thinking like an Inquisitor. Condemning the heretic while you really mean to condemn the heresy.

Think of it this way, Mike. Look at these 2 sentences, with very different meanings:

A. The Catholic Church is at war with poverty.

vs

B. The Catholic Church is at war with the poor.

Well, who is in poverty except the poor? The use of the noun “poor” only describes someone in poverty.

However, one cannot use them interchangeably, otherwise one gets a nonsensical statement like statement “B”.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

YES!

This is my final post to you on the subject of heresy…are you going to comment on CCC 2089 or are you going to posture?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike