religious freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrld20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A_Catholic said:
Yes, Protestants do worship the Triune God, and they do believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour. I don’t think I denied that. My comment is that I don’t think Protestants believe Catholics worship the same God as they do. We all know that Protestants have historically called the Catholic Church the Great Whore of Babylon. Protestants believe Catholics engage in idolatry because we have statues, they believe we engage in Mary worship, they believe we use vain repetitions in our prayer, and they completely and totally reject the Eucharist. They, of course, also reject the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. The example I used in my first post was members of a family who have chosen to separate themselves from the family. They still have the same family name - in this case, Christian - but they have lost all the benefits that come from being part of the family.

A heretic is one who rejects the teachings of the Church. By so completely rejecting the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church, the Protestant belief is heresy. That is not to say each individual Protestant is a heretic.
Click to expand...
Again, I know you are wrong. Some Protestants may think many things of Catholics but they do think we worship the one and only God.
 
How can a Protestant not be a material heretic? Ratzinger seems to be in heresy himself for denying this
 
aquinasg said:
How can a Protestant not be a material heretic? Ratzinger seems to be in heresy himself for denying this
Click to expand...
So now you know better than the Pope? It’s okay, I understand, I don’t agree with everything either. So I completely undertand you. I guess cafeteria catholics come from both sides of the fence. This is just another plate…
 
Ratzinger said that in a private book, before he was elected. A heretic cannot be elected Pope. SO maybe we don’t really have a Pope
 
Maybe God will intervene. I don’t know. I still want to know how Carmalites and Fransicans interprete heresy differently, as was claimed. Maybe that will clear up Ratzingers quote
 
aquinasg said:
How can a Protestant not be a material heretic? Ratzinger seems to be in heresy himself for denying this
Click to expand...
Pay close attention to what he’s saying. He’s saying that today’s Protestant is not a material heretic. This is the same thing that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II said. The reason is that today’s Protestantism is very different from that of the Reformation.

Today’s Protestantism is handed down as faith, not a rebellion, politics, reform or some other erroneous idea. These folks are not trying to embrace error. They are trying to embrace what they understand in faith. The key is “faith”. For them, their beliefs and customs are pratices in faith.

This is why the popes are saying that this is a different situation from that of the Reformation. The people of that time were very different than the Protestants of today. Those people back then were not being handed down a faith system. They were being pulled out of the faith.

With the shift in realities, there must also be a shift in our approach and our understanding of the whole situation. It was Pope Paul VI, was himself a lawyer, who said that the canon defining heresy did not apply to Protestants and Orthodox, because Canon Law is written for Catholics. It was Bl. John Paul, while he was pope, who said that Protestants should not be referred to as material heretics, because this is a different generation and the original definition of the term does not apply In response to that, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the need to find an appropriate language to explain the situation.

Our problem is that we don’t want to change our language, even when it becomes inaccurate. I’ve always wondered if it’s a problem of security. Most people prefer what they know, even if it no longer works as well. We’re not talking about a change in truth, we’re talking about changing how we define something, because our definition is not accurate.

Unfortunately, we don’t have an accurate defintion, because we don’t really understand modern day Protestantism. The Catholic Church is humble enough to admit this. It’s a phenomenon that no one expected, but it won’t go away either. Therefore, we have to try to understand it.
aquinasg said:
Ratzinger said that in a private book, before he was elected. A heretic cannot be elected Pope. SO maybe we don’t really have a Pope
Click to expand...
Calling Pope Benedict a heretic because you don’t understand his thinking is over the top, don’t you think?

It is very regretable when people appeal to labels, because they don’t understand, rather than trying to understand.

I repeat what I said above, pick up the Carmelite, Augustinian and Franciscan writings. Try to think like these writers and theological masters. Then you’ll understand the Holy Fathers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
aquinasg said:
Maybe God will intervene. I don’t know. I still want to know how Carmalites and Fransicans interprete heresy differently, as was claimed. Maybe that will clear up Ratzingers quote
Click to expand...
In simple language, the heretic is the Catholic who knowingly and obstinately embraces error and rejects truth. The term was never intended to be applied to those who were born outside of Catholicism.

There is error and there is heresy. A person outside of Catholicism may embrace error or reject what we know to be truth, but he is not acting contrary to his faith.

A Catholic who embraces error or rejects what he knows to be truth is acting contrary to his faith. That person is a heretic.

A heresy is that which is contrary to the faith that has been handed down to you. because it’s in error or because it abandons truth.

This is not the situation of those born into other faiths. The error remains an error, but it’s only heresy if a Catholic (who should know better) embraces it. If you look back 800 years, when the early Franciscans took over the Jerusalem and the Carmelites later joined them, they never called the Muslims or Jews heretics or apostates, because these folks were born into these faith traditions. Later, when the Orthodox arrives on the scene, they were never called heretics either, because they too were born into this faith. The errors were not embraced as errors, but as faith. These folks are not protesting anything. They are embracing what has been handed to them as part of their heritage.

The task here is to sort through what we have in common, strengthen that, clarify what errors and misconceptions there are on both sides so as to bring home the non Catholic. This is very important. It’s not enough to point out the errors of the Reformers to the Protestants. The Catholics must also clarify the misconceptions that we have promoted.

We have to help the Protestant understand the erros of the Reformers, but we also have to admit the errors of our people. The tendency in Traddom is to point to the Protestant as if he were the original Reformer and to pretend that Catholics have no fault in the separation. Both are wrong. The child is not the parent and there were faults on both sides.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
In simple language, the heretic is the Catholic who knowingly and obstinately embraces error and rejects truth. The term was never intended to be applied to those who were born outside of Catholicism.

There is error and there is heresy. A person outside of Catholicism may embrace error or reject what we know to be truth, but he is not acting contrary to his faith.

A Catholic who embraces error or rejects what he knows to be truth is acting contrary to his faith. That person is a heretic.

A heresy is that which is contrary to the faith that has been handed down to you. because it’s in error or because it abandons truth.

This is not the situation of those born into other faiths. The error remains an error, but it’s only heresy if a Catholic (who should know better) embraces it. If you look back 800 years, when the early Franciscans took over the Jerusalem and the Carmelites later joined them, they never called the Muslims or Jews heretics or apostates, because these folks were born into these faith traditions. Later, when the Orthodox arrives on the scene, they were never called heretics either, because they too were born into this faith. The errors were not embraced as errors, but as faith. These folks are not protesting anything. They are embracing what has been handed to them as part of their heritage.
Click to expand...
I understand, of course, what you say about those born into other faiths. And I can understand what you say about those who leave the Church because they don’t want to follow the rules. But…

So what of the Catholic who leaves the faith for another religion, for example Lutheranism, Baptism…or even Orthodoxy? They too are acting in faith, not obstinacy. So what of them?
 
aquinasg said:
SO maybe we don’t really have a Pope
Click to expand...
And you’ve decided this all by yourself, huh? Congratulations, you now have immense hubris.

P.S.: It’s “Pope Benedict XVI,” or, if you’re in Europe, “Pope Ratzinger.” Not simply “Ratzinger.” That’s denying his authority.

Oh, wait…we already determined that you’re a self-proclaimed sedevacantists. You really want to be banned here, don’t you?
 
severus68 said:
Again, I know you are wrong. Some Protestants may think many things of Catholics but they do think we worship the one and only God.
Click to expand...
Yep. As an ex Protestant who for some years was quite anti-Catholic, you speak the truth, Sir. 🙂

And by anti-Catholic, I actually prayed for Catholics. In fact, I agonized over the soul of Catholics and rejoiced when one became “saved.”

Later on I became more liberal, but when I did believe Catholics added man-made things to Christianity, never once did I think Catholics worshiped the God of the River Styx or anything like that.
 
Rence said:
I understand, of course, what you say about those born into other faiths. And I can understand what you say about those who leave the Church because they don’t want to follow the rules. But…

So what of the Catholic who leaves the faith for another religion, for example Lutheranism, Baptism…or even Orthodoxy? They too are acting in faith, not obstinacy. So what of them?
Click to expand...
From a theological point of view, this is really a very interesting question and one that cannot be answered just by applying a label. However, if we follow the rules of St. Ignatius of Loyola, we have to believe that this person is not discerning the spirits at work here and is following the spirit of desolation, which leads him away from the fullness of truth, believing it to be faith.

Francis of Assisi would tell you that the key here is “following”. This person is following that which leads him away, when he should be running away from it and torward prayer and remain in prayer until God restores his soul.

In times of spiritual desolation, one should never make any changes, because the enemy will disguise anything as faith, when it is really error. The enemy desires that we keep these suggestions a secret and not discuss them with the Church, but rather, lose trust in the Church. The enemy thrives when he’s kept secret. This is the root of many heresies.

On the other side, the rest of us must be open to listening when the person shares his or her doubts with us. If we jump quickly to labeling, then we have bypassed listening and proceeded to judging.

Judgment is part of the process, but it must take place at the right moment in the proper sequence. Listening must come first and then we judge the doubt, the temptation or other error, not the person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR,
 
aquinasg said:
Ratzinger said that in a private book, before he was elected. A heretic cannot be elected Pope. SO maybe we don’t really have a Pope
Click to expand...
Just for the record, Sedevacantism is not allowed here. So you might want to rephrase your question.
 
JReducation said:
From a theological point of view, this is really a very interesting question and one that cannot be answered just by applying a label. However, if we follow the rules of St. Ignatius of Loyola, we have to believe that this person is not discerning the spirits at work here and is following the spirit of desolation, which leads him away from the fullness of truth, believing it to be faith.

Francis of Assisi would tell you that the key here is “following”. This person is following that which leads him away, when he should be running away from it and torward prayer and remain in prayer until God restores his soul.

In times of spiritual desolation, one should never make any changes, because the enemy will disguise anything as faith, when it is really error. The enemy desires that we keep these suggestions a secret and not discuss them with the Church, but rather, lose trust in the Church. The enemy thrives when he’s kept secret. This is the root of many heresies.

On the other side, the rest of us must be open to listening when the person shares his or her doubts with us. If we jump quickly to labeling, then we have bypassed listening and proceeded to judging.

Judgment is part of the process, but it must take place at the right moment in the proper sequence. Listening must come first and then we judge the doubt, the temptation or other error, not the person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR,
Click to expand...
So, then such a person isn’t a heretic? Not that it would matter to such a person because they have found Christ somewhere else, but I was curious as to how the Church views such a person. They don’t really address this person. They address those who were born into another religion. And, they address those who leave the Chuch because they don’t want to conform to Catholic rules and laws. But they don’t really address those who genuinely believe the truth lies in another religion, and who is closer to Christ in another religion. Maybe there’s a reason for that, I don’t know.
 
Rence said:
So, then such a person isn’t a heretic? Not that it would matter to such a person because they have found Christ somewhere else, but I was curious as to how the Church views such a person. They don’t really address this person. They address those who were born into another religion. And, they address those who leave the Chuch because they don’t want to conform to Catholic rules and laws. But they don’t really address those who genuinely believe the truth lies in another religion, and who is closer to Christ in another religion. Maybe there’s a reason for that, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
Don’t misunderstand me. The Church does address this person and always has. We see these people addressed by people such as Francis, Eugene de Maserat, Alphonse de Ligouri, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict.

There is no specific law that says, “These people over here [insert comment]”. The reason is that these folks have been addressed in Catholic Spiiritual Theology. They should be addressed continuously through catechesis and spiritual direction.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Pay close attention to what he’s saying. He’s saying that today’s Protestant is not a material heretic. This is the same thing that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II said. The reason is that today’s Protestantism is very different from that of the Reformation.

Today’s Protestantism is handed down as faith, not a rebellion, politics, reform or some other erroneous idea. These folks are not trying to embrace error. They are trying to embrace what they understand in faith. The key is “faith”. For them, their beliefs and customs are pratices in faith.

This is why the popes are saying that this is a different situation from that of the Reformation. The people of that time were very different than the Protestants of today. Those people back then were not being handed down a faith system. They were being pulled out of the faith.

With the shift in realities, there must also be a shift in our approach and our understanding of the whole situation. It was Pope Paul VI, was himself a lawyer, who said that the canon defining heresy did not apply to Protestants and Orthodox, because Canon Law is written for Catholics. It was Bl. John Paul, while he was pope, who said that Protestants should not be referred to as material heretics, because this is a different generation and the original definition of the term does not apply In response to that, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote of the need to find an appropriate language to explain the situation.

Our problem is that we don’t want to change our language, even when it becomes inaccurate. I’ve always wondered if it’s a problem of security. Most people prefer what they know, even if it no longer works as well. We’re not talking about a change in truth, we’re talking about changing how we define something, because our definition is not accurate.

Unfortunately, we don’t have an accurate defintion, because we don’t really understand modern day Protestantism. The Catholic Church is humble enough to admit this. It’s a phenomenon that no one expected, but it won’t go away either. Therefore, we have to try to understand it.
Click to expand...
Language barrier or not, what on earth is there to understand?

Protestantism was error then and it is still error now. Protestants are no longer heretic for sure but they are in ERROR.

Isn’t that obvious? I think the good leaders of the church are confusing ERROR with HERETIC and assuming that since they are no longer HERETICS they are no longer in error. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top