Protestant heresies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dandelion_Wine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Its like listening to a conversation about me, in my presence. 😛 😛

Jon
Click to expand...
🙂 We only point these things out because we love you Jon. After all…you’re one of my favorite n-Cs around here. 😃

Still, if these errors are really errors and you agree then there’s something you can do about it, right?
 
JonNC said:
Its like listening to a conversation about me, in my presence. 😛 😛

Jon
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
We should probably rename the thread “The Synod on JonNC”. 😃

You are welcome to stick around Jon, even if you have no voting rights.😛

Peace!!!
 
PRmerger said:
This is contrary to Church teaching. Our catechism, which is the “sure norm” for the faith, declares: “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”-CCC 818

It would be the height of irony if, in posting this, Unam Ecclesiam was refusing to submit to this teaching of our Church–for that would make him, by his own statement, a heretic.

If it were true what he had posted, of course.

Fortunately, what was posted by Unam Ecclesiam is incorrect.
Click to expand...
PR-

When someone goes off about Mary not being the Mother of God, that is heresy. Now, it could be a view that is held out of ignorance, but once it has been explained that Jesus is God and Mary is his Mother, etc., and they continue to reject the idea that Mary is the Mother of God, then that person is a heretic.

Protestants have separated themselves from some of the truths of the faith and embraced doctrines rejected by the Church; that is heresy. The Orthodox hold orthodox views of the faith but have separated themselves from the Church; that is schism.

That said, the Church seems to recognize that those born into those non-Catholic faith communities are not guilty (at least to the same degree) of the sin of those who first made the break. This seems especially perilous for Catholics who leave to join the Orthodox or Protestant churches - though I hold out hope that perhaps God has mercy upon them because He recognizes the causes of their ignorance, etc.
 
Randy_Carson said:
PR-

When someone goes off about Mary not being the Mother of God, that is heresy. Now, it could be a view that is held out of ignorance, but once it has been explained that Jesus is God and Mary is his Mother, etc., and they continue to reject the idea that Mary is the Mother of God, then that person is a heretic.

Protestants have separated themselves from some of the truths of the faith and embraced doctrines rejected by the Church; that is heresy. The Orthodox hold orthodox views of the faith but have separated themselves from the Church; that is schism.

That said, the Church seems to recognize that those born into those non-Catholic faith communities are not guilty (at least to the same degree) of the sin of those who first made the break. This seems especially perilous for Catholics who leave to join the Orthodox or Protestant churches - though I hold out hope that perhaps God has mercy upon them because He recognizes the causes of their ignorance, etc.
Click to expand...
A heretic can only be a person who was Catholic.
 
PRmerger said:
A heretic can only be a person who was Catholic.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, I never call anyone a heretic, unless the Church does.

I feel that is above my paygrade.

However, I do recognize and identify* heresy * (to wit: declaring that Mary is not the mother of God, per Randy’s example) when I see it.

Some might say it’s a distinction without a difference, for what is a heretic save for someone who proclaims heresy?

But I counter with this: semantics can be of great import. For example: I say that I am at war with poverty. But that is not the same thing as saying I am at war with the poor.

Similarly, I am at war with heresy, but that is not the same thing as saying I am at war with heretics.
 
PRmerger said:
Incidentally, I never call anyone a heretic, unless the Church does.

I feel that is above my paygrade.

However, I do recognize and identify* heresy * (to wit: declaring that Mary is not the mother of God, per Randy’s example) when I see it.

Some might say it’s a distinction without a difference, for what is a heretic save for someone who proclaims heresy?

But I counter with this: semantics can be of great import. For example: I say that I am at war with poverty. But that is not the same thing as saying I am at war with the poor.

Similarly, I am at war with heresy, but that is not the same thing as saying I am at war with heretics.
Click to expand...
Hi PR Merger: I agree with you!
 
PRmerger said:
A heretic can only be a person who was Catholic.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to a certain degree, but by virtue of baptism, non-Catholics are rightly honored with the name of Christian. Yet, some of these Christians hold false ideas that were condemned by the councils long ago.

So, what do you call a Christian who believes heresies?

(No, no, no…*besides *“Prostestant”! :))
 
Randy_Carson said:
This makes sense to a certain degree, but by virtue of baptism, non-Catholics are rightly honored with the name of Christian. Yet, some of these Christians hold false ideas that were condemned by the councils long ago.
Click to expand...
They need to have embraced the faith, the Catholic faith, first in order to reject it.

Calling someone a heretic who was never a Catholic is like calling me an adulterer (in relation to you) when I was never married to you. :eek:
So, what do you call a Christian who believes heresies?
Click to expand...
(No, no, no…*besides *“Prostestant”! :))
Click to expand...
Heh. 😛

Why should I call him anything?

NB: **I **don’t call him a heretic (unless the Church does). No way. Nuh-uh. Never will.

That’s above my paygrade.
 
ltwin said:
I accept what the creed states: “I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”. I accept this because it is Scriptural. Ephesians 4:4-6 states, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” In Acts 2:38, Peter preaches, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Pentecostals do not believe that baptism is “optional.” It is a direct command of Christ that his followers be baptized, and failure to obey this command is disobedience to the Lord. **What we believe is that the act of baptism does not save or regenerate. **It does symbolize regeneration. It symbolizes the “circumcision made without hands” and “the circumcision of Christ” that God makes possible by uniting believers to Christ in his death and resurrection. It is this union that baptism signifies. Baptism witnesses to the remission of sins and justification. Baptism tells the Christian that he must die to sin and rise to righteousness, and it obliges and encourages the recipient to hope in God for sanctification and glorification.
Click to expand...
Then how can you say you agree with the Creed?

And a follow up question related to this one: When did someone become a member of the Old Covenant? Was it upon a profession of faith, a change of heart, a repenting to the Lord? Or was it when he was ACTUALLY circumcized?
 
PRmerger said:
They need to have embraced the faith, the Catholic faith, first in order to reject it.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

“Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

From: catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies​

That seems to support your view since the Catechism mentions the “Catholic faith”. However, that same article goes on to list Protestantism as one of histories great heresies. So, how do we reconcile these positions?

Well, the answer may be in the distinction between formal heresy and material heresy.

EWTN explains it here:

The Church’s moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

And I got that from a great post (#2) in an old CAF thread here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=754988
 
Randy_Carson said:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

“Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

From: catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

That seems to support your view since the Catechism mentions the “Catholic faith”.
Click to expand...

However, that same article goes on to list Protestantism as one of histories great heresies.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But not Protestants. At least, not today. Not if they were born into their communion.
 
adf417 said:
I think this statement needs a little clarification. 🙂 The Catholic Church holds that much/most protestants beliefs are not heretical. Only the few we differ on. 👍

Peace!!!
Click to expand...
That’s actually not true The Great Heresies

2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

One might appeal to ignorance, but ignorance isn’t always innocent 1791
 
steve_b said:
That’s actually not true The Great Heresies

2089"*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

One might appeal to ignorance, but ignorance isn’t always innocent 1791
Click to expand...
Hi steve. I’m not seeing how this makes my statment untrue.

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top