The sin of heresy

[Roman_Army]

Yet in this case we have the Magisterium actually providing definitions of something and not including the one that you are putting forward.

We also have the Magisterium stating that those who are born into “schism” are not guilty of schism yet you state that this is not so.

Who are we to believe in these two cases? The Magisterium or some anonymous poster on the Internet?

ByzCath:

It seems you are misunderstanding Ron Conte. First of all, certainly the Magisterium might not officially define what material heresy or material schism is. She will most likely limit herself to only defining formal heresy and formal schism. The terms “material heresy” or “material schism” are just terms commonly used by theologians merely to describe the situation of people who are not guilty of the sin of heresy or schism but by an accident not of their own making (e.g. being born in a protestant church) they are subscribing to false or erroneous opinions and are physically unconnected with the Church. This theologians commonly call material heresy and material schism. The word heresy used in the broader sense of “error” or merely in contradiction to the opinion of another group and the word material used as in saying physical, temporal, here on earth. The same with material schism. The word schism taken in its broader sense meaning separation, and material meaning here on earth, physical, or temporary. Perhaps you can interchange it with “unintentional error” and “unintentional separation.” But, these more vague terms are not used because they do not specify the type of error or separation. For example, an error can be against the teaching of transubstantiation but the person might still believe in Christ. But, then there can be an error against the teaching of Christ’s divinity and the oneness of God while the person might still believe in the supernatural. So, it is important to distinguish the type of error in theological discourse, so that the former would be material heresy and the latter material apostasy.

 

[Ron_Conte]

ByzCath,

Please ignore Roman_Army’s incoherent bablings and false claims about what I meant. His posts are filled with ignorant false claims about Church teaching and theology. I don’t even bother to try to correct him anymore.

Yet in this case we have the Magisterium actually providing definitions of something and not including the one that you are putting forward.

The mere absence of terminology in a particular document does not establish anything. The citation you gave actually uses the same idea that I presented; the only difference is I used terminology not found in that document.

We also have the Magisterium stating that those who are born into “schism” are not guilty of schism yet you state that this is not so.

Formal schism is actual sin, which includes guilt; mere material schism is mere objective sin, which does not include guilt. So the document you cite makes the same distinction that I am making, but with different terminology. But the terminology that I use is commonly used in theology.

Who are we to believe in these two cases? The Magisterium or some anonymous poster on the Internet?

I am not anonymous. My user name is my real name. See my websites in my signature for more information about me. I believe that you are posting anonymously, giving only your first name (but perhaps I am mistaken?).

ByzCath – you are speaking as if the teachings of the Catholic faith were limited to the explicit written statements of the Magisterium. This idea of basing the faith only on the Magisterium, abandoning Tradition, Scripture, theology, and the use of reason with faith, is a serious doctrinal error. The distictions and terminology that I am using are found in many theological works. See the article I cite above in the Catholic encyclopedia.

“Magisterium alone” is a heresy, an abandonment of reason and true faith, not a greater faithfulness.

 

[Roman_Army]

ByzCath,

Please ignore Roman_Army’s incoherent bablings and false claims about what I meant. His posts are filled with ignorant false claims about Church teaching and theology. I don’t even bother to try to correct him anymore.

That’s because you are unable to correct what you know for a fact is correct.

 

[Roman_Army]

There are also some ignorant and arrogant Catholics who are using the internet to teach what they imagine is Catholic teaching, but what is in fact material heresy or at least serious doctrinal error. They teach without having first learned. They make foolish arguments. They misunderstand the Catechism and the magisterial documents that they cite. They distort and oversimplify the holy Catholic Faith. And they are uncorrectable.

They are leading many persons astray, adding the sin of scandal, often to a grave extent.

Many of these persons have hundreds or thousands of posts, and they have put substantial time and effort into this gravely sinful promotion of heresy and serious doctrinal error. This type of sin is an objective mortal sin, and for some persons may be an actual mortal sin. And they don’t seem to care at all if they are sinning.

I would hope that you would include yourself among those “ignorant and arrogant Catholics who are using the internet to teach what they imagine is Catholic teaching.” No one is beyond reproach. Everyone has faults, frailties, and yes an ego at times. Everyone has been there and done that and then there is always repentance and redemption. But, certainly most are here with the intention to learn from others. I’m optimistic and think that most here acknowledge their fallibility and lack of authority, credentials, and expertise. They perhaps do not need to be belittled and reminded of their supposedly inferior status in the field of theology and Church affairs from someone like yourself. I know that I was at the other end of your sword in another thread merely for disagreeing with your unofficial and completely non-authoritative opinion that contained absolutely no authoritative sources. It also seems that you exaggerate the gravity of certain honest mistakes or innocent misinterpretations or even legitimate disagreement and label them as “serious doctrinal error” and “anathema.” Like what does the categorizing of infallible doctrines have to do with the Church’s infallible teachings itself? Absolutely nothing, it’s just a convenient way for theologians to discuss them.