The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a heresy

[Good_Fella]

I’m off work so I’ve got time to answer. What I am trying to say is that you portray Mary as a false prophet in the same line as Mohamed by declaring that she was assumed/ ascended into heaven. I am only prepared to believe in the Ascension of Christ which is in the Gospel of Luke, Mark and in the Acts of the Apostles. There are some people here who say I am not a Catholic because I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. However I believe that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and God was his father, that he died and was resurrected and ascended into heaven. I also believe in the Eucharist, Confession and the other sacraments. I also believe the Gospel is the word of God. Is the belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption how you define yourself as Catholics? Do you believe you will be saved by Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption when there is no biblical basis for either of these two things? The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are minor Marian heresies.

If you’re really a Catholic, then you must know that we don’t believe Mary ascended into heaven by her own power. She was assumed body and soul by the power of her divine Son, preceding our own bodily resurrection provided we are found worthy on the last day. (Enoch and Elijah were taken bodily to the terrestial paradise at the gate of Heaven. Only Jesus and Mary exist body and soul in Heaven pending the resurrection.)

A true and faithful Catholic doesn’t impiously dissent by restricting his beliefs to certain points of Christ’s teachings - handed down by the apostolic teaching authority of the Church - according to his own judgment. A true and faithful Catholic, unlike a heretic, will assent to all the teachings of the Church as mediated by the deposit of faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, the Church has had to reckon with heretics through the centuries, who accepted only parts of the deposit of faith which met their personal approval. In your case, it appears only erroneous judgment and an imperfect understanding of the Church’s Marian dogmas have contributed to your rejection of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. I urge you to read the Apostolic Constitutions Ineffabilis Deus, of Pope Pius lX, and Munificentissimus Deus, of Pope Pius Xll, to fully apprehend the Church’s proposal of these revealed divine truths which our Lord wills we believe. You’ll discover the scriptural and traditional basis for these two dogmas in their encyclicals. May the grace of God help prevent you from further relying on your own fallible insight or from misguided religious fervor, or both.

You cannot be sure that the dogmas of the Virgin Birth and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist aren’t just as false as you believe our Marian dogmas to be, if you reject the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Heretics have the tendency to believe only what suits their pleasure and satisfies their pride. You do reject our Marian dogmas since you feel they have no direct bearing on your own salvation. But Mary’s immaculate conception saved her by virtue of our Blessed Mother’s divine maternity, and her assumption into heaven strengthens our hope in the promised resurrection of the dead.

The Church doesn’t commit heresies, individuals do. Paul wrote to Timothy that* the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth*.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[raaucoin]

When I fell away from the Church and indeed our Lord Jesus, it was because Satan launched attacks in my heart and my mind regarding just what Our Lord said in His last words" Woman, behold your son, …Behold your mother". No, He was not asking us to worship Mary. But He did want us to give her the proper respect she deserves as THE MOTHER OF GOD. And I also believe that in doing so She answers His request that She care for us in a special way.

About that attack I started writing of, It was Mary who brought the Savior into the world(by the power of the Spirit) and She continues to draw the world to her Son. Why wouldn’t Satan attempt to lure her children away from her.Even in my blasphemy against the Mother of God, she still reached out to me and called me home to her side, and she walks with me to the foot of the Cross and begs her Son to forgive someone who insulted the one person who meant most to Him-HIS MOTHER.

As Catholics, we know the teachings of the Church come to us through the Spirit. Be careful of alienating yourself from the greatest Intercessor we have save the Lord Jesus to God the Father.

 

[PJM]

The Sacred Heart of Mary explained

=budgie2;5271576]I believe it is a heresy as it depicts Mary as both God and Woman, a divinity and goddess. Jesus said that he was the way to the Father and that we would know the Father through him. The Sacred Heart of Jesus shows both Christ’s humanity and divinity and is a divinely revealed statue. Mary could be represented as only having a flame in the place of her Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart could be placed in Mary’s womb. This would have a more pro-life message (not divinely revealed). This is not yet defined dogma but it will be. Flame represents the Holy Spirit, as Mary was a holy woman although I believe the heart with sunrays should really represent God’s love.
media.photobucket.com/image/Immaculate%20Heart%20%25252Bimage/TwoHeartsAblaze/2708b1f5.jpg

Friend,

I can see where one might reach the conclusions that you have.

The issue here is a natural tendency, and I might add, a correct one, to study God to discover how He shows Himself to us, and ask why a totally human person can appear to be an equal?

Let me began my defense of these age old pictures, which by the way, I have in our dinning room, that we inherited from my Methodist in-laws.

26 "In the sixth month **the angel Gabriel was sent from God **to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

**The first point **I’d like to make is that the picture we are speaking about is a “family picture.” Verse 35 clearly affirms that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who too is God, and gave birth to her Son whom she named “Jesus”, who too is God, and thus Mary is the Mother of God.

Second point. Why did humanity “have to” participate in this unique and historical event. The answer is that in a true sense it did not have to be this way. This took place in this manner because, and only because it was the Divine Will of God.

Third point. Because we can never fully understand the mind and Will of God, nor know precisely why Mary was chosen from all women, in all of time, past, then present, and future. What we can know is that she had to be “perfect” in every way.

**Why perfect? **If we go back to book of Exodus, chapter 25 has God telling Moses [who too in a sense was a savior] exactly and precisely how to build “The Ark of the Covenant.” Two things are notable in this dialog. First God is very precise in what His expectations are, and what materials are to be used. Most notably, “pure gold” [not just gold], purified gold is to cover both the interior and exterior of the Ark.

**
Keep in mind **the purpose of the Ark was to [only] hold the “Spirit” of God, His Commandments, and NOT God Himself. If God had these demands for His Spirit, what would that same God demands for the Ark of the Living Covenant, the first tabernacle of Himself, the Mother of His Son?

**Mary HAD to be perfect in order to become the Mother of God. HAD TO BE! **

Forth Point: What is the origin of sin? And how is it transmitted to all humanity except Mary, who as a special grace by God had to be perfect?

It is of course the sin of Adam and Eve that we call “Original sin” and we inherit it when we are born. Because sin was a human fault, God determined that humanity MUST have an active role in negating the effects of sin. Thus God Himself took on a human form, was born, suffered, died and ROSE from the dead, in order to Redeem us.

However this WOULD not have happened if Mary, a teenage virgin who had been dedicated to God at an early age by her parents, had not FREELY consented to cooperate with God’s plan for our Redemption. She could have said “no thanks!”

**The most notable shared attribute of Jesus and Mary is LOVE. Perfect Love. **

Mary NEVER said “NO” to God; Mary suffered a great deal because of who and what she is. She gave birth in a cave, then had to leave everything and move to Egypt, and later move to Nazareth, where she knew no one. Her son “deserted her” for three day’s. She shared further by staying with Jesus throughout His Ministry, all the pain and abuse Jesus took. She shared in His Suffering and death, and was present when Jesus ascended into heaven, losing Him again. She endured a “sword of sorrow” into her own heart, when Jesus dead battered and bloodless body was placed in the tomb. But through it all, she said “thy will, not my will be done.” Through it all she never loss faith, and she always LOVED PERFECTLY.

So Mary is filled with the Holy Spirit. Mary did open her heart to God and to us and Mary did love perfectly. The picture shows us that Mary is NOT God, but the most loving and perfect of human beings. Amen! There is No hersey, we know who Mary is, that she is The Mother of God, NOT GOD!

 

[Mintaka]

Well, she didn’t have to be. God could have raised up human beings from the stones, and picked out Quartz bat Igneous to be Jesus’ mother. He could have made Rahab His mother. He could have picked anyone He liked. He’s God.

However, it was reasonable and it was artistically fitting for God to make the mother of the New Adam be as pure of sin and original sin as the original Eve had been. Since God is Reason (logos means “reason” and “logic” as well as “word”) and the original Artist, it’s perfectly logical to suppose that “it was cool and made sense” is actually God’s reason for doing a lot of things.

(You get a lot of the Fathers of the Church getting even more poetic about this, pointing out that Adam and Eve were formed out of “virgin earth” in the story, and therefore that Jesus was formed out of a virgin woman. This is a terrible pun, of course, and obviously these guys were the sort to have fun with “virgin forest” and “virgin olive oil” as well.)

Anyway, back to the point of this thread. The major thing to understand about any kind of iconography is that it’s a complicated system. Some things we all understand pretty quickly because it fits modern culture. (Advertising uses a lot of symbolism.) But some stuff requires a bit of research to understand. Nobody who didn’t grow up in the Eastern side of the Church expects to be able to read an icon’s symbolism at a glance, without thinking about it, unless they took a lot of classes and have done a lot of research.

The original poster has found out, rather unexpectedly, that a simple picture has a lot of depth to it, and that perhaps she doesn’t understand it the way the artist who made it understood it. She has also found out (perhaps not so unexpectedly to her) that she doesn’t believe the teachings behind the picture in quite the same way, either.

Well, it’s obvious that if you want to understand any piece of art, you have to be able to understand what the artist meant to portray. Studying iconography, even in a small way, is fun and educational. It will repay your interest, and then you can read the paintings in your local art museum. You can also read articles by professors, arguing about what certain artists meant by their iconography.

As for Catholic doctrine, it’s a lot longer study. If you’re serious about disagreeing with some doctrines, it would well behoove you to do that study, if only so you can better make your case. But honestly, I think that if you do the study, you’ll find that your objections have already been answered, a lot better than folks on this forum can. There have also been many threads on those specific topics; you might like to explore them.

As for everyone else, I think many of you haven’t used a very helpful tone in your posts. I know it’s tempting to just up and tell people what you think (I do it myself here), but you’ve escalated things a lot.

 

[budgie2]

Well, she didn’t have to be. God could have raised up human beings from the stones, and picked out Quartz bat Igneous to be Jesus’ mother. He could have made Rahab His mother. He could have picked anyone He liked. He’s God.

However, it was reasonable and it was artistically fitting for God to make the mother of the New Adam be as pure of sin and original sin as the original Eve had been. Since God is Reason (logos means “reason” and “logic” as well as “word”) and the original Artist, it’s perfectly logical to suppose that “it was cool and made sense” is actually God’s reason for doing a lot of things.

(You get a lot of the Fathers of the Church getting even more poetic about this, pointing out that Adam and Eve were formed out of “virgin earth” in the story, and therefore that Jesus was formed out of a virgin woman. This is a terrible pun, of course, and obviously these guys were the sort to have fun with “virgin forest” and “virgin olive oil” as well.)

Anyway, back to the point of this thread. The major thing to understand about any kind of iconography is that it’s a complicated system. Some things we all understand pretty quickly because it fits modern culture. (Advertising uses a lot of symbolism.) But some stuff requires a bit of research to understand. Nobody who didn’t grow up in the Eastern side of the Church expects to be able to read an icon’s symbolism at a glance, without thinking about it, unless they took a lot of classes and have done a lot of research.

The original poster has found out, rather unexpectedly, that a simple picture has a lot of depth to it, and that perhaps she doesn’t understand it the way the artist who made it understood it. She has also found out (perhaps not so unexpectedly to her) that she doesn’t believe the teachings behind the picture in quite the same way, either.

Well, it’s obvious that if you want to understand any piece of art, you have to be able to understand what the artist meant to portray. Studying iconography, even in a small way, is fun and educational. It will repay your interest, and then you can read the paintings in your local art museum. You can also read articles by professors, arguing about what certain artists meant by their iconography.

As for Catholic doctrine, it’s a lot longer study. If you’re serious about disagreeing with some doctrines, it would well behoove you to do that study, if only so you can better make your case. But honestly, I think that if you do the study, you’ll find that your objections have already been answered, a lot better than folks on this forum can. There have also been many threads on those specific topics; you might like to explore them.

As for everyone else, I think many of you haven’t used a very helpful tone in your posts. I know it’s tempting to just up and tell people what you think (I do it myself here), but you’ve escalated things a lot.

Hi Mintaka, I do not agree that Jesus is the New Adam although St Paul said as we were all lost through one man we will be saved through one man (which I can’t find in my Bible). Adam was a full human being and immortal (but only human) before the fall of humanity according to Church tradition whereas Christ is God incarnate aswell as human. Nor do I believe that Mary is the New Eve. Mary ascended/was assumed into heaven and is said to have escaped from death as if Original Sin have never happened. Christ however had to carry the burden of Original sin and all the sins of the world and had to share in our humanity. The title that Christ gives to himself is Son of Man which could be read as Son of Adam therefore it’s possible that he inherited Original Sin. However he is also Son of God.

 

[PJM]

=budgie2;5295085]Hi Mintaka, I do not agree that Jesus is the New Adam although St Paul said as we were all lost through one man we will be saved through one man (which I can’t find in my Bible). Adam was a full human being and immortal (but only human) before the fall of humanity according to Church tradition whereas Christ is God incarnate aswell as human. Nor do I believe that Mary is the New Eve. Mary ascended/was assumed into heaven and is said to have escaped from death as if Original Sin have never happened. Christ however had to carry the burden of Original sin and all the sins of the world and had to share in our humanity. The title that Christ gives to himself is Son of Man which could be read as Son of Adam therefore it’s possible that he inherited Original Sin. However he is also Son of God.

Friend are you REALLY a Catholic? You sure don’t understand what we believe and why!

God cannot sin and be God period! God is perfect, indeed all and only everything good perfectly.God would have to STOP being God if He could sin, and He CANNOT because its against His Divine nature. That is right. He cannot sin!

You’re understanding of the theology that Christ is the “new Adam” is because as sin came into the world through one man, so to the removal of sin, and redemption come to humanity through that one man / God; Jesus Christ. Christ is not “like Adam” he perfects Adam! Get it? He “offsets Adam’s sin and ours.”

**Romans 5: 12 "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19* For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. 20* Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21* so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. **

Dear friend in Christ, if you don’t know or don’t understand what the RCC Teaches and practices, please do not pontificate as though you do!

If you do not believe what the Chrurch teaches then just tell us you’re a Catholic who does not believe such and such and we will take a different approach with you.

The greater error is not knowingm but pretending that you do.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Drawmack]

Charles Darwin wrote his “Origin of Species”
…

Darwinian-Marxian-Millian pride

Rome has officially stated, for many years, that the theory of evolution is not at odds with Christianity.

Other than this, the post is great, but I couldn’t just sit by and let this one slide.

 

[Drawmack]

Mary is not the only human being to not have died. I forget which one, but one of the prophets was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. He didn’t die.

Also, Mary didn’t die, so she isn’t loving?!!
I think you have to really, rethink what you are saying, cause that doesn’t make any sense.

Elijah

 

[budgie2]

Friend are you REALLY a Catholic? You sure don’t understand what we believe and why!

God cannot sin and be God period! God is perfect, indeed all and only everything good perfectly.God would have to STOP being God if He could sin, and He CANNOT because its against His Divine nature. That is right. He cannot sin!

You’re understanding of the theology that Christ is the “new Adam” is because as sin came into the world through one man, so to the removal of sin, and redemption come to humanity through that one man / God; Jesus Christ. Christ is not “like Adam” he perfects Adam! Get it? He “offsets Adam’s sin and ours.”

**Romans 5: 12 "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19* For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. 20* Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21* so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. **

Dear friend in Christ, if you don’t know or don’t understand what the RCC Teaches and practices, please do not pontificate as though you do!

If you do not believe what the Chrurch teaches then just tell us you’re a Catholic who does not believe such and such and we will take a different approach with you.

The greater error is not knowingm but pretending that you do.

Love and prayers,
Pat

I still do not believe that Christ is the New Adam although thanks for finding the verse in Romans. To say that Christ is a New Adam is another Minor Marian Heresy.

 

[sabriner]

i think it’s time for us to pray really, really hard for budgie2 rather than trying to “outsmart” and convince him (not that we don’t already… but just saying). especially to our Mama Mary.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by JamesE24
Mary is not the only human being to not have died. I forget which one, but one of the prophets was taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot. He didn’t die.

Also, Mary didn’t die, so she isn’t loving?!!
I think you have to really, rethink what you are saying, cause that doesn’t make any sense.

Dear Brother James,

And you KNOW this how:shrug:

This is not the position of the Catholic Church, and I do not believe that their is any historical evidence to support this position.

The Chruch teaches that Mary never suffered bodily courption, and that she was taken into heaven “body and soul.” The Chruch has not as far as I am aware made a definitive declairation on this as after or before death. It is I agree a minor point.

As an FYI, there was a second prophet also taken body and soul. I can’t remember his name, it started with an “E” and I thought from Genesis?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Nick_in_MB]

I still do not believe that Christ is the New Adam although thanks for finding the verse in Romans. To say that Christ is a New Adam is another Minor Marian Heresy.

Too funny. You’ve got to be joking by now.

You can’t accept that Mary was assumed into Heaven, since it’s not in the Bible. Yet you can’t accept things that are in the Bible and pointed out to you. Hysterical.

 

[1ke]

What, pray tell, is a Minor Marian Heresy?

 

[E.E.N.S]

I have been doing research for the Church and I am developing my own theology.

Wait let me get this straight. You look at a devotional painting, get some of your own weird, made-up theology, and declare the artist as well as Pope Pius IX a heretic and the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be heresy? These are serious charges (and offenses), you may want to reconsider your erroneous position and go to confession.

Also you may want to consider where you stand at this point:

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.

Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

 

[E.E.N.S]

I still do not believe that Christ is the New Adam although thanks for finding the verse in Romans. To say that Christ is a New Adam is another Minor Marian Heresy.

1 Cor 15:45 “The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

i think it’s time for us to pray really, really hard for budgie2 rather than trying to “outsmart” and convince him (not that we don’t already… but just saying). especially to our Mama Mary.

Of course we need to pray for him, but we should not stop trying to correct him, after all two of the spiritual works of mercy are instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. To hold the position budgie is holding as a Catholic, a Catholic who has been shown the error of his ways and ideas, is a position that automatically excommunicates a person. He needs to be aware of that, reconsider his erroneous stance, repent, go to confession, and then perhaps study some solid theology.

---

(So that it is not missed, I am bringing this over from the last page.)

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.

Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offences which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

 

[Drawmack]

What, pray tell, is a Minor Marian Heresy?

Same thing as a major Marian Heresy, but not quite as heretical.

 

[Drawmack]

Of course we need to pray for him, but we should not stop trying to correct him, after all two of the spiritual works of mercy are instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. To hold the position budgie is holding as a Catholic, a Catholic who has been shown the error of his ways and ideas, is a position that automatically excommunicates a person. He needs to be aware of that, reconsider his erroneous stance, repent, go to confession, and then perhaps study some solid theology.

I will gladly accept any correction on this point. But, I’m fairly certain that showing someone the error of their ways requires teaching faculties. Thus, Budgie would have to talk with a priest or deacon (with teaching faculties) in order to be corrected. I have not seen anyone on this thread identify themselves as someone with this authority. Thus, Budgie has not been shown the error of his ways.

Don’t get me wrong, Budgie is speaking erroneously. I fear that Budgie may be falling into deep heresy (but I cannot declare this – I don’t have the authority). I think that Budgie should speak to a priest before talking about his views in public, or private, any further so that he may be corrected. But, I cannot correct him. I can only inform him why I think he is wrong – I have the authority to do no more than that. I also cannot declare that he has suffered laea sentient excommunication (sp?).

If there is someone in this thread with teaching faculties then I will stand corrected. However, until such a time as someone in this thread identifies themselves as such I think we should refrain from conveying rights and privileges to ourselves which we do not have. After all, this would place the corrector into the realms of heresy themselves.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I will gladly accept any correction on this point. But, I’m fairly certain that showing someone the error of their ways requires teaching faculties. Thus, Budgie would have to talk with a priest or deacon (with teaching faculties) in order to be corrected. I have not seen anyone on this thread identify themselves as someone with this authority. Thus, Budgie has not been shown the error of his ways.

Don’t get me wrong, Budgie is speaking erroneously. I fear that Budgie may be falling into deep heresy (but I cannot declare this – I don’t have the authority). I think that Budgie should speak to a priest before talking about his views in public, or private, any further so that he may be corrected. But, I cannot correct him. I can only inform him why I think he is wrong – I have the authority to do no more than that. ** I also cannot declare that he has suffered laea sentient excommunication** (sp?).

If there is someone in this thread with teaching faculties then I will stand corrected. However, until such a time as someone in this thread identifies themselves as such I think we should refrain from conveying rights and privileges to ourselves which we do not have. After all, this would place the corrector into the realms of heresy themselves.

Any lay person can do what I did, which is simply quote the Church on her teachings. I risk no heresy in pointing out what I did, nor did I declare anything at all…I merely pointed out to him that he was wrong, and told him to be careful and quoted the Church to show him that he was (at least) dancing on a very fine and dangerous line.

 

[AdriannaJean]

Budgie,

I have a question for you. It is very straightforward. Do you believe the Bible?

You use your belief in the Bible to refute the Immaculate Heart of Mary yet you turn around and say that the Bible is wrong about Enoch, Elijah and Christ being the New Adam.

Do you believe the Bible or yourself?