The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a heresy

[E.E.N.S]

Just so it is clear I am going to re-post this yet a third time.

This is what the Church says:

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)​

So if there is anyone in this thread that may fit the description above…well you know what it says. Perhaps everyone should read it twice, slowly.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

You stated: “No, you excommunicate yourself.”

You stated: “You’re attitude and opinions throughout this thread are not Catholic.”

These are your words. These are direct quotes. By what authority to you make these statements? These are not presented as opinion, but as statement of fact. Who gave you the authority to proclaim such things?

Yes, they are direct quotes.
“You excommunicate yourself” as in Latae sententiae, an automatic excommunication.
I could go out and get an abortion, which would be difficult since I’m a guy, and that would, according to the links I posted, bring about an automatic excommunication. Nobody would have to say "You are hereby excommunicated.
Or, if you’re a heretic, a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth (according to Webster), that too would bring about excommunication, apparently.

“You’re attitude and opinions throughout this thread are not Catholic.”
Well, when you refuse to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the Bible, how does that make a person Catholic?
My father doesn’t accept Marian theology or the office of the Pope. Does that make him a Catholic?

 

[Nick_in_MB]

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.

So this is what you mean by “who gave you the authority.”
Well, aren’t we all called to evangelize and preach the gospel?
So, according to you, we should just sit back and let abortions happen, let persecutions happen, accept gay marriage, etc… because we aren’t priests or deacons with the “teaching faculties” to tell people that what they are doing is wrong.

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.

Aren’t we all called to do that though? St Francis told us to preach the gospel always, and to use words when necessary, or something to that effect (it’s not an exact quote).

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.

Obviously, he should do that. But if he’s unwilling to accept the teaching as pointed out to him from the bishops’ website and the Vatican’s website…

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?).

Well, it’s not a “thought” though. I “think” there’s laws and stuff (like sins) that are okay, and would love for them to be okay and not sins. I accept the Church’s authority that they are sins and don’t commit them, or do my best not to commit them.
And all we’re doing is pointed out why he’s wrong, by showing him parts of the Bible, the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law.
And nobody declares if he’s automatically excommunicated. Church teaching points it out for him.

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.

How so? How is quoting Church teaching heresy?

 

[Drawmack]

Yes, they are direct quotes.
“You excommunicate yourself” as in Latae sententiae, an automatic excommunication.
I could go out and get an abortion, which would be difficult since I’m a guy, and that would, according to the links I posted, bring about an automatic excommunication. Nobody would have to say "You are hereby excommunicated.
Or, if you’re a heretic, a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth (according to Webster), that too would bring about excommunication, apparently.

My problem with this is that, according to this logic every member of a Protestant denomination whose baptism is recognized by the Catholic Church would be under Latae Sententiae excommunication. I don’t think that this is the case. I’m fairly certain that the Church refers to them as schismatics, which is different than referring to a group as excommunicants. This is why I keep saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim that someone has been excommunicated. Whether they have or not, you do not have the authority to state that. I am not arguing the point of if the excommunication has happened, I am saying that the laity do not have the right to proclaim this. While no further action needs to be taken, it is still outside the scope of laity to make this determination.

“You’re attitude and opinions throughout this thread are not Catholic.”
Well, when you refuse to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the Bible, how does that make a person Catholic?
My father doesn’t accept Marian theology or the office of the Pope. Does that make him a Catholic?

I didn’t say that Budgie’s attitude and opinion were Catholic. Matter of fact, if you actually read all my posts, you’ll see that I told Budgie I fear they are falling into deep heresy. However, it is not within the scope of a laity’s authority to proclaim someone’s opinions and attitudes as unCatholic. If you want to point out their error, find do that, support it with Church teachings, and either allow these to stand on their own or explain with what authority you extrapolate on them. Are you quoting a document? Fine then this quote may be authoritative, but your commentary is not. Are you directly quoting someone with teaching faculties? Fine this quote may be authoritative, but your commentary is not.

As members of the laity our commentary on a topic is not authoritative. And, to present as such is to proclaim authority we have not been given. It is really that simple.

So, you can quote the CDF, CCC, encyclicals, etc. You can then say that according to this I don’t believe you are … or I believe you are … but you do not have the authority to proclaim this as fact. So, you should stop proclaiming opinion as fact until such a time as you have the authority to do so.

 

[Drawmack]

So this is what you mean by “who gave you the authority.”
Well, aren’t we all called to evangelize and preach the gospel?
So, according to you, we should just sit back and let abortions happen, let persecutions happen, accept gay marriage, etc… because we aren’t priests or deacons with the “teaching faculties” to tell people that what they are doing is wrong.

I never said any such thing. I’m pretty sure that if I said that I would be proclaiming heresy and could suffer excommunication myself. I would like you to publicly apologize to me for posting these inflammatory statements and falsely claiming that they are the natural extension of what I said. I would also appreciate you seeking the council of a spiritual director with a print out of this thread and ask their advice on the best way to make reparations for this type of character assassination.

I am free to tell someone, anyone, what the Church teaches. Not only am I free to do this, I am called to do this. Not doing this could put my soul in mortal peril, which is why I continue to correct you when you are acting against Church teachings by proclaiming the authority of the magisterium for yourself.

It is also my duty to tell someone the authority with which I speak. When I directly quote someone else, I am (by proxy) speaking with their authority. However, when I go beyond that quote to explain what it means or how it applies to the situation at hand I have just lost the protection of their authority and am now only speaking with the authority I have, which as laity really isn’t much.

All that I ask, is when you proclaim your opinion on how a teaching relates to the situation at hand you clearly state that this is what you are doing and clearly state the authority which you have to do this.

Aren’t we all called to do that though? St Francis told us to preach the gospel always, and to use words when necessary, or something to that effect (it’s not an exact quote).

Yes, my patron Saint did say that. I interpret this to mean that in every action, in every interaction we are to act in accordance with the Gospel. I also believe that Jesus lived as the model for how we are to live. Jesus clearly stated the authority by which he spoke, repeatedly. Thus, I believe, that you and I should also clearly state the authority by which we speak.

Obviously, he should do that. But if he’s unwilling to accept the teaching as pointed out to him from the bishops’ website and the Vatican’s website…

I don’t ask Budgie to accept what I point out from somewhere. After all, I could be misunderstanding it. I could be taking it out of context. I ask Budgie to take what I, or in this case others, have pointed out to a priest (or deacon with teaching faculties) and get an authoritative opinion on if these are heretical beliefs or not. I do not have the authority to proclaim as fact that they are or not, and neither do you.

Well, it’s not a “thought” though. I “think” there’s laws and stuff (like sins) that are okay, and would love for them to be okay and not sins. I accept the Church’s authority that they are sins and don’t commit them, or do my best not to commit them.
And all we’re doing is pointed out why he’s wrong, by showing him parts of the Bible, the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law.
And nobody declares if he’s automatically excommunicated. Church teaching points it out for him.

You do not have the authority to draw that conclusion. You have the authority to point out the teaching. You have the authority to point out what the Church states as the penalty for disobedience to this teaching. But, you do not have the authority to connected the dots. Which is what you’ve done in the posts on this thread.

How so? How is quoting Church teaching heresy?

Reread the quote. I said, “However, until such a time as someone in this thread identifies themselves as such [a person with teaching faculties] 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.” Now, I will admit that I should have said this could and not this would. I apologize for misspeaking. However, I never stated that quoting Church teaching is heresy. I would appreciate a public apology for this attempt at defamation through the use of subterfuge. And, again would ask that you seek the council of a spiritual director for advice on how best to make reparations for this character assassination.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

I never said any such thing. I’m pretty sure that if I said that I would be proclaiming heresy and could suffer excommunication myself. I would like you to publicly apologize to me for posting these inflammatory statements and falsely claiming that they are the natural extension of what I said.

I will do no such thing. Inflammatory? Like how you’re accusing me of excommunicating people?

I would also appreciate you seeking the council of a spiritual director with a print out of this thread and ask their advice on the best way to make reparations for this type of character assassination.

Character assassination? As is A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure’s reputation? Where did I do that?

I am free to tell someone, anyone, what the Church teaches. Not only am I free to do this, I am called to do this. Not doing this could put my soul in mortal peril, which is why I continue to correct you when you are acting against Church teachings by proclaiming the authority of the magisterium for yourself.

How am I doing this when all I am doing is pointing out Church teaching?

It is also my duty to tell someone the authority with which I speak. When I directly quote someone else, I am (by proxy) speaking with their authority. However, when I go beyond that quote to explain what it means or how it applies to the situation at hand I have just lost the protection of their authority and am now only speaking with the authority I have, which as laity really isn’t much.

So I’m not allowed to quote the Bible, the Catechism, and Canon law?

All that I ask, is when you proclaim your opinion on how a teaching relates to the situation at hand you clearly state that this is what you are doing and clearly state the authority which you have to do this.

So again, unless given the authority, we’re not allowed to quote the Bible, the Catechism, or Canon Law?
Take this to a secular level… Group of bikers assemble in a club for a peaceful protest, sanctioned by the local government to do so. Residents don’t want them to assemble, period, citing permit laws, which the group has obtained. I’m not allowed to, when talking with the residents in casual conversation, to point out that the First Amendment allowed for peaceful assembly, with citations and actually quoting the First Amendment word for word, unless I am a member of some authority?

Yes, my patron Saint did say that. I interpret this to mean that in every action, in every interaction we are to act in accordance with the Gospel. I also believe that Jesus lived as the model for how we are to live. Jesus clearly stated the authority by which he spoke, repeatedly. Thus, I believe, that you and I should also clearly state the authority by which we speak.

Then I ask you. Who gave you the authority to interpret what a saint said?

I don’t ask Budgie to accept what I point out from somewhere. After all, I could be misunderstanding it. I could be taking it out of context. I ask Budgie to take what I, or in this case others, have pointed out to a priest (or deacon with teaching faculties) and get an authoritative opinion on if these are heretical beliefs or not. I do not have the authority to proclaim as fact that they are or not, and neither do you.

I don’t think anybody said outright that budgie was a heretic. We pointed out the definitions of a heretic, what a heresy is, and what can get a person excommunicated automatically, meaning no person of authority needs to declare the person excommunicated. That, to me, seems to be the issue between myself and yourself, that the Church allows to people to be excommunicated with no declaration of that happening.

You do not have the authority to draw that conclusion. You have the authority to point out the teaching. You have the authority to point out what the Church states as the penalty for disobedience to this teaching. But, you do not have the authority to connected the dots. Which is what you’ve done in the posts on this thread.

I’m drawing no conclusion. I’m connecting no dots. They are connecting themselves.
Take abortion, as budgie mentioned a few posts back. The law is clear, a person who procures an abortion is excommunicated. So if somebody I know gets an abortion, I shouldn’t tell them any of that?

Reread the quote. I said, “However, until such a time as someone in this thread identifies themselves as such [a person with teaching faculties] 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.” Now, I will admit that I should have said this could and not this would. I apologize for misspeaking. However, I never stated that quoting Church teaching is heresy. I would appreciate a public apology for this attempt at defamation through the use of subterfuge. And, again would ask that you seek the council of a spiritual director for advice on how best to make reparations for this character assassination.

Again, I will not apologize. You said that we didn’t have the right to point out what the Church teaches.
Your words…
I think we should refrain from conveying rights and privileges to ourselves which we do not have.
That’s proclaiming that we don’t have the right to do what we’ve been doing, point out and quoting the Catechism, the Bible, Canon law, and for myself at times, wikipedia and websters dictionary. With the url or reference so people can look it up themselves.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

My problem with this is that, according to this logic every member of a Protestant denomination whose baptism is recognized by the Catholic Church would be under Latae Sententiae excommunication. I don’t think that this is the case. I’m fairly certain that the Church refers to them as schismatics, which is different than referring to a group as excommunicants. This is why I keep saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim that someone has been excommunicated. Whether they have or not, you do not have the authority to state that. I am not arguing the point of if the excommunication has happened, I am saying that the laity do not have the right to proclaim this. While no further action needs to be taken, it is still outside the scope of laity to make this determination.

What we do know is that protestants are not “in communion” with Rome. And not every member of a protestant church is baptized either. Known fact: some don’t baptize infants. They baptize people who are saved. So, it’s possible for a person, although most likely a child or a teenager, but in some instances, an adult, to not be baptized and still be a member of a protestant church. I know several baptists that have been since childhood, and got baptized in there 20s and 30s.
But again, we have a list of the types of people that incur and automatic excommunication. We don’t have to declare them as such, the list does it for us. A heretic is automatically excommunicated. A person procuring an abortion is automatically excommunicated. We’re not declaring them as such. We would only be pointing out that the Church says, that the Church says they are excommunicated.

I didn’t say that Budgie’s attitude and opinion were Catholic. Matter of fact, if you actually read all my posts, you’ll see that I told Budgie I fear they are falling into deep heresy. However, it is not within the scope of a laity’s authority to proclaim someone’s opinions and attitudes as unCatholic. If you want to point out their error, find do that, support it with Church teachings, and either allow these to stand on their own or explain with what authority you extrapolate on them. Are you quoting a document? Fine then this quote may be authoritative, but your commentary is not. Are you directly quoting someone with teaching faculties? Fine this quote may be authoritative, but your commentary is not

As members of the laity our commentary on a topic is not authoritative. And, to present as such is to proclaim authority we have not been given. It is really that simple.

I don’t think any of us were doing that.
And where am I claiming that my opinion is authority? By saying that the way a person is speaking isn’t Catholic? It isn’t. I get accused of being a pagan at least once a month by my father because “you guys are no Christian and you pray to Mary and you go to a pagan church.” He grew up in the Catholic faith, but his speech is certain not Catholic like.

So, you can quote the CDF, CCC, encyclicals, etc. You can then say that according to this I don’t believe you are … or I believe you are … but you do not have the authority to proclaim this as fact. So, you should stop proclaiming opinion as fact until such a time as you have the authority to do so.

That’s commentary though. “I believe” or “I don’t believe” is commentary.
And none of us have provided commentary that claims that budgie is excommunicated. None of us have said outright that budgie is a heretic.

 

[E.E.N.S]

This is why I keep saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim that someone has been excommunicated.

Actually, we haven’t been proclaiming him as excommunicated, we have been telling him that the Church says these type of actions cause the person committing them to excommunicate themselves automatically. Hence the quoted documents repeatedly. We are saying, “this is what the Church says…”

…, you’ll see that I told Budgie I fear they are falling into deep heresy. However, it is not within the scope of a laity’s authority to proclaim someone’s opinions and attitudes as unCatholic…

Actually, telling a person that is merely sinning venially (perhaps being rude towards his neighbor) that he is acting un-Catholic, or un-Christian is far less of a declaration than telling them that they are falling into “deep heresy”…think about it for a minute.

Next, we should not be focusing on each other due to semantics, we have a Catholic here who is seriously denying the Faith and claims to have made up his own theology - THIS is what we should be concerned with first and foremost!

 

[Nick_in_MB]

My problem with this is that, according to this logic every member of a Protestant denomination whose baptism is recognized by the Catholic Church would be under Latae Sententiae excommunication. I don’t think that this is the case. I’m fairly certain that the Church refers to them as schismatics, which is different than referring to a group as excommunicants. This is why I keep saying that you do not have the authority to proclaim that someone has been excommunicated. Whether they have or not, you do not have the authority to state that. I am not arguing the point of if the excommunication has happened, I am saying that the laity do not have the right to proclaim this. While no further action needs to be taken, it is still outside the scope of laity to make this determination.

You don’t think they are latae sententiae excommunicated? Who gave you that authority, since you like to ask me who gave me my authority?

From Vatican.va
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
You yourself have just said you are “fairly certain that the Church refers to them as schismatics”. According to Can 1364, a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
There, no commentary, all I’ve done is point out what Canon Law has to say on it.
Here’s my commentary though. You say they’re not excommunicated. I say you’re wrong, since canon law says otherwise.

 

[Mothers_Boy]

Now I wish I had scribbled the notes I wanted to while listening to the radio earlier today. I heard a discussion of Mary’s fiat and the Holy Spirit. The crux was that Mary’s fiat was worded in a way which meant that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and never left her. She shined with the Holy Spirit from that point on. If the fire represents the Holy Spirit then The Immaculate Heart is not a heresy. Not bad for ten minutes of “work”…

Seriously, if anyone knows anything about what I am so poorly trying to get across, please help me with this.

 

[Drawmack]

I will do no such thing. Inflammatory? Like how you’re accusing me of excommunicating people?
Character assassination? As is A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure’s reputation? Where did I do that?

How am I doing this when all I am doing is pointing out Church teaching?
So I’m not allowed to quote the Bible, the Catechism, and Canon law?

So again, unless given the authority, we’re not allowed to quote the Bible, the Catechism, or Canon Law?
Take this to a secular level… Group of bikers assemble in a club for a peaceful protest, sanctioned by the local government to do so. Residents don’t want them to assemble, period, citing permit laws, which the group has obtained. I’m not allowed to, when talking with the residents in casual conversation, to point out that the First Amendment allowed for peaceful assembly, with citations and actually quoting the First Amendment word for word, unless I am a member of some authority?

Then I ask you. Who gave you the authority to interpret what a saint said?

I don’t think anybody said outright that budgie was a heretic. We pointed out the definitions of a heretic, what a heresy is, and what can get a person excommunicated automatically, meaning no person of authority needs to declare the person excommunicated. That, to me, seems to be the issue between myself and yourself, that the Church allows to people to be excommunicated with no declaration of that happening.
I’m drawing no conclusion. I’m connecting no dots. They are connecting themselves.
Take abortion, as budgie mentioned a few posts back. The law is clear, a person who procures an abortion is excommunicated. So if somebody I know gets an abortion, I shouldn’t tell them any of that?

Again, I will not apologize. You said that we didn’t have the right to point out what the Church teaches.
Your words…
I think we should refrain from conveying rights and privileges to ourselves which we do not have.
That’s proclaiming that we don’t have the right to do what we’ve been doing, point out and quoting the Catechism, the Bible, Canon law, and for myself at times, wikipedia and websters dictionary. With the url or reference so people can look it up themselves.

You are making statements that are in direct conflict with what you’re responding to. You have ceased to make sense and I see no need to reply to any of this.

 

[Drawmack]

Actually, telling a person that is merely sinning venially (perhaps being rude towards his neighbor) that he is acting un-Catholic, or un-Christian is far less of a declaration than telling them that they are falling into “deep heresy”…think about it for a minute.

I agree completely, that’s why I said I fear he may be falling into deep heresy. I never proclaimed that he was. I simply said that I feared he may be. Please at least read my words before you respond to them?

Next, we should not be focusing on each other due to semantics, we have a Catholic here who is seriously denying the Faith and claims to have made up his own theology - THIS is what we should be concerned with first and foremost!

I agree and will now drop this sub-thread.

 

[Drawmack]

You don’t think they are latae sententiae excommunicated? Who gave you that authority, since you like to ask me who gave me my authority?

From Vatican.va
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
You yourself have just said you are “fairly certain that the Church refers to them as schismatics”. According to Can 1364, a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
There, no commentary, all I’ve done is point out what Canon Law has to say on it.
Here’s my commentary though. You say they’re not excommunicated. I say you’re wrong, since canon law says otherwise.

I prefaced it the statement with I think, thus I was not speaking authoritatively so your question about who gave me my authority is a misnomer. If you’re going to comment on what I say please READ WHAT I SAID FIRST?

Thank you for the reference.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

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.

Then here’s your correction. We’re point out what the Church teaches, by quoting the Catechism, Canon law, and the Bible, with links and references so it can be looked up personally, prefaced with something along the lines of “Here’s what the Church teaches” or “Canon law says” or “the Catechism says”.

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?).

True enough. But the Catechism does tell us what heresy is.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.shtml#2089(italics done by me, only made the words italics, didn’t add the words themselves)
2089 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."

So I will just quote again, what started all of this…

So you would excommunicate me on these grounds? I have not threatened to excommunicate you. I have friends that have had abortions that I have tried to help get back in contact with the Church. I do not think you’re attitude is that of a Christian.

Again. No. There is no declaration of excommunication. If anything, it’s an automatic excommunication, in accord with Can. 1364.

And the Catechism tells us what heresy is. Along with Canon law.
Can. 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.

And now I’ll quote budgie.

I am not prepared to believe that Mary was assumed to heaven as I do not believe she is divine and this is not part of our Gospel and scripture.

And I’ll then quote the Vatican. Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.

And Budgie has said this.

There are absolutely no eyewitness accounts documented in the Bible for the Assumption even though Mary was with the apostles at Pentecost. Therefore the Assumption is currently only theory and cannot be proved as fact. I declare it false!

So, he, budgie, has declared the Assumption false.
And yet, Pope Pius XII states that it’s “a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”
And Canon law 751 states that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
And Pope Pius XII was at one time, while still alive, the Supreme Pontiff.
And then there’s Can. 1364.
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

 

[Drawmack]

Then here’s your correction. We’re point out what the Church teaches, by quoting the Catechism, Canon law, and the Bible, with links and references so it can be looked up personally, prefaced with something along the lines of “Here’s what the Church teaches” or “Canon law says” or “the Catechism says”.

True enough. But the Catechism does tell us what heresy is.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.shtml#2089(italics done by me, only made the words italics, didn’t add the words themselves)
2089 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."

So I will just quote again, what started all of this…

Again. No. There is no declaration of excommunication. If anything, it’s an automatic excommunication, in accord with Can. 1364.

And the Catechism tells us what heresy is. Along with Canon law.
Can. 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.

And now I’ll quote budgie.

And I’ll then quote the Vatican. Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

And Budgie has said this.

So, he, budgie, has declared the Assumption false.
And yet, Pope Pius XII states that it’s “a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”
And Canon law 751 states that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
And Pope Pius XII was at one time, while still alive, the Supreme Pontiff.
And then there’s Can. 1364.
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.

I have already agree to drop this sub-thread. Please do so as it is distracting to the more important point at hand as EENS pointed out.

In case you’re wondering, no I didn’t read this and I’m not going to.

[Edit: Okay so I did read it and great post Nick!]

 

[Nick_in_MB]

I have already agree to drop this sub-thread. Please do so as it is distracting to the more important point at hand as EENS pointed out.

In case you’re wondering, no I didn’t read this and I’m not going to.

[Edit: Okay so I did read it and great post Nick!]

Sorry, I was gathering information, going to websites, etc., so I didn’t see that post of yours. But I did make it relevant to the original post and poster.

But while browsing my Catechism, I can across something.
Apparently, we MAY have SOME authority.

CCC 900 - Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.

 

[Drawmack]

Sorry, I was gathering information, going to websites, etc., so I didn’t see that post of yours. But I did make it relevant to the original post and poster.

But while browsing my Catechism, I can across something.
Apparently, we MAY have SOME authority.

CCC 900 - Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ. Their activity in ecclesial communities is so necessary that, for the most part, the apostolate of the pastors cannot be fully effective without it.

Yeah, I already knew all that. But, thank you though.

 

[mardukm]

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. Sunrays are also used around the monstrance to represent the light of Christ’s soul, Jesus the light of the world.

So Jesus is wrong when he teaches us:

“You are the light of the world…Let your light shine upon others.” Matthew 5:14-16.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[theotikos]

This is the kind of thing our Heavenly Father wants us to pray about. First of all, I know very well about this issue but I am in no mood to argue. If someone is willing to make reparation for the blasphemous comments about Mother Mary please read and act upon a devotion entitled First Five Saturdays. How dare somebody come into our forum and say such disrespectful things? Mother Mary was immaculately conceived. She was set apart from other women for she bore the Son of God. Does anyone think how can Jesus who has no sin in him be born of a woman who sins?? She is full of grace, just as the Archangel Gabriel is among the seven who are before the throne of God, he said “Hail Mary full of grace” If she is full of grace not to sin, then where is the room to sin? There is none. She knew not a man and she is a perpetual virgin. I think that doesn’t make sense. And when one dies, say suppose a son and his mother, would they not be together in Heaven?? God entrusted His Beloved Jesus to Mary and when Jesus said “Woman behold your son” and to John “Behold your mother” He willed that Mary is our spiritual mother. Well don’t you say that Eve is the mother of the fallen race of mankind? This same way Mary is our spiritual mother, because of her womb and maternal care, Jesus was able to redeem us from that which separates us from God. I just get really angry or irritated at people like Moses when I know how ignorant people are to talk about hearsay instead of praying to God for answers. They make up answers on their own. Why don’t you ask God the Father to give you enlightenment for your souls? If you do not know the answer then do not act as if you know the answer. And if you don’t know how the get the answer, as Jesus said “seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened” do not give up praying or searching for Jesus’ truth. The Catholic Church is there to be our guide as Jesus authored this Church of His people. Jesus even said “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.”

 

[budgie2]

Mother Mary was immaculately conceived. She was set apart from other women for she bore the Son of God. Does anyone think how can Jesus who has no sin in him be born of a woman who sins??

Equally I could say to you all that you cannot love Mary unless she’s absolutely perfect and cannot love a sinner which is a sign of weakness. Equally we cannot love Jesus unless he’s absolutely perfect. I’m prepared to accept both committed minor venial sins. At one point I would have thought like you. I agree with you that Mary could be compared to Ark of the Covenant. The New Covenant is the body and blood of Christ instituted by Jesus at the last supper. By having Christ’s body inside her womb her womb was like the Ark of Covenant. Equally the tabernacle at Church and the faithful who receive Communion are also Arks of the covenant.