6 ways to know you're dealing with a catholic heretic

[Imalive]

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/matthe...-dealing-with-a-catholic-heretic#.WfMXqnR1HqA

 

[JRT]

If a person's beliefs line up with mine then you know that you are dealing with an heretic on several levels.

 

[Albion]

I take it that that page is supposed to be funny--and maybe it is. However, it's no joke that the RCC promotes that kind of militant mindset among its members, particularly young converts. Just change a few words in that link and it would be routine stuff, not hyperbole.

 

[Josiah]

.

A Catholic, by definition, is one who docilicly swallows whole whatever * the individiual, singular RC Denomination currently says ** BECAUSE it itself does. CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc. It is the foundation and most-important point of the RC Denomination.***


Now "heretic" is not a word Catholicism throws around easily. In the proper sense, it refers to someone who clearly KNOWS the current, official proclamations of the individual, exclusive, singular RC Denomination (especially de fide dogmas) - BUT flatly denies such as true. One who doesn't totally understand the stance or who doesn't exactly shout "that's wrong!" isn't usually called specifically a "heretic."



- Josiah



* Officially and formally, in matters of faith and morals
** Via the denomination and official spokespersons (an individual priest, for example, doesn't necessary speak for the denomination)
*** The primary reason I left the RC Denomination; I could not - in clear conscience - do this.



.

 

[Imalive]

.

A Catholic, by definition, is one who docilicly swallows whole whatever * the individiual, singular RC Denomination currently says ** BECAUSE it itself does. CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc. It is the foundation and most-important point of the RC Denomination.***


Now "heretic" is not a word Catholicism throws around easily. In the proper sense, it refers to someone who clearly KNOWS the current, official proclamations of the individual, exclusive, singular RC Denomination (especially de fide dogmas) - BUT flatly denies such as true. One who doesn't totally understand the stance or who doesn't exactly shout "that's wrong!" isn't usually called specifically a "heretic."



- Josiah



* Officially and formally, in matters of faith and morals
** Via the denomination and official spokespersons (an individual priest, for example, doesn't necessary speak for the denomination)
*** The primary reason I left the RC Denomination; I could not - in clear conscience - do this.



.

No that's a calvinist word.
I'm sorry, I just found it funny since all the recent calling everything a heresy posts.
I was looking for a fun nit pick game to find a heresy in something. I shouldnt make fun of it. It's serious business, but I get like that if ppl go heresy hunting.

 

[Albion]

No that's a calvinist word.

It certainly is not. The word itself and heresy-hunting were big deals long before Calvin came on the scene. Even today when people are less wiling to accuse anyone of being a heretic, that's precisely and officially what Protestants are to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Josiah]

A Catholic, by definition, is one who docilicly swallows whole whatever * the individiual, singular RC Denomination currently says ** BECAUSE it itself does. CCC 87, etc., etc., etc., etc. It is the foundation and most-important point of the RC Denomination.***


Now "heretic" is not a word Catholicism throws around easily. In the proper sense, it refers to someone who clearly KNOWS the current, official proclamations of the individual, exclusive, singular RC Denomination (especially de fide dogmas) - BUT flatly denies such as true. One who doesn't totally understand the stance or who doesn't exactly shout "that's wrong!" isn't usually called specifically a "heretic."



- Josiah



* Officially and formally, in matters of faith and morals
** Via the denomination and official spokespersons (an individual priest, for example, doesn't necessary speak for the denomination)
*** The primary reason I left the RC Denomination; I could not - in clear conscience - do this.


.

No that's a calvinist word.

.

I never mentioned Calvinism....

We shouldnt make fun of it. It's serious business, but I get like that if ppl go heresy hunting.

I don't think I made fun of "heresy." Yes, I think that truth IS serious business and therefore falsehood is also serious. But I agree "heresy" is not a word we should throw around loosely (and I don't see that here at CH much); for Protestants, a heresy is something that contradicts well-established, traditional, orthodox teachings. It IS 'heresy' to deny the Trinity or Two Natures of Christ, for example and IMO it's okay to use the word in that technical context, but I rarely do - it's just not a word that tends to encourage discussion (but yes, sometimes this reality needs to be pointed out).


I 'read' the opening post as from the perspective of Catholicism.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

It certainly is not. The word itself and heresy-hunting were big deals long before Calvin came on the scene. Even today when people are less wiling to accuse anyone of being a heretic, that's precisely and officially what Protestants are to the Roman Catholic Church.

No one gets burned at the stake anymore (at least by Christians)..... and rarely is the word "heresy" thrown about (although there is probably more technical heresy around in Christianity today than in nearly 2000 years). But IMO this is because relativism has infected much of Christianity, a pandemic. And because of political correctness and the enormous influence of perhaps the 20th Century's most influential person - Mr. Rodgers - "nice" now trumps truth, feelings are the most important thing. IMO, the modern Western church often embraces Mr. Rogers perhaps more than Christ. Christians don't use this word "heresy" not because they don't see it but because it's not nice to say it and it might hurt someone's feelings.



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I agree--and said--that the word itself is not much used in polite, ecumenical company today.

But does the Catholic Church still officially consider Protestants to be heretics, and that word is used to describe the matter, at least among Catholics? Yes, indeed.

 

[Imalive]

No one gets burned at the stake anymore (at least by Christians)..... and rarely is the word "heresy" thrown about (although there is probably more technical heresy around in Christianity today than in nearly 2000 years). But IMO this is because relativism has infected much of Christianity, a pandemic. And because of political correctness and the enormous influence of perhaps the 20th Century's most influential person - Mr. Rodgers - "nice" now trumps truth, feelings are the most important thing. IMO, the modern Western church often embraces Mr. Rogers perhaps more than Christ. Christians don't use this word "heresy" not because they don't see it but because it's not nice to say it and it might hurt someone's feelings.



- Josiah

hm I dont care. Whos Rogers? But ppl either are too politically correct or they throw it all over the place. Just had a discussion w Snerf last week. We believe the same and we get a heated debate about osas. I say thats evil, thats a heresy! Hes like youre works based! Turns out he believes the same stuff. First listen good, then maybe say heresy.

 

[Tigger]

I agree--and said--that the word itself is not much used in polite, ecumenical company today.

But does the Catholic Church still officially consider Protestants to be heretics, and that word is used to describe the matter, at least among Catholics? Yes, indeed.

Right, the term heretic has been softened to heterodoxy. Depending on perspective the terms can be synonymous or from much broader views of doctrinal acceptance, to just mean other teachings.

 

[Josiah]

First listen good, then maybe say heresy.

We certainly agree there!

 

[Albion]

Right, the term heretic has been softened to heterodoxy.

Good point. Just as Christ re-sacrificed at Mass was changed to a re-presentation, Purgatory ceased to purge and became a re-orientation session, Divorce became Annulment, and Confession became Reconciliation.

 

[Josiah]

Good point. Just as Christ re-sacrificed at Mass was changed to re-presented there (as though those two could possibly mean the same thing), Purgatory ceased to purge and became a re-orientation session, Divorce became Annulment, and Confession became Reconciliation.

A Catholic apologist at CF once wrote to me, "The Catholic Church NEVER admits when it was wrong (in dogma)... it just redefined its own words, give it all a better "spin" and HOPE everyone forgets what it use to teach." I've found this often to be the case. In dogma at least, the RCC cannot say it was ever anything but perfect and infallible because that would destroy the whole foundation and premise of that denomination, which claims that when IT itself speaks (in official matters of faith and morals, at least) it itself uniquely is infallible/unaccountable and is the Mouth of God. It cannot have anyone docilicly submitting to it itself as unto God Himself and thinking, "it could turn out my denomination is wrong about this." Or even considering that as a possibility.

But yes, a lot of things in Catholicism are... well..... mostly swept under the rug these days. A teacher in my Catholic parish's First Communion Class flatly admitted that the RCC stopped teaching its Eucharistic Doctrine (Transubstantiation) to laity years ago and now teaches basically the Eastern Orthodox view and something pretty close to the Lutheran one, although it still uses the WORD "transubstantiation" just stripped of any meaning. Has it changed it's dogma? No way. Just brushes it under the rug in hopes no one will see it. Same with Purgatory and a number of other things..... All to keep unchallenged its claim that there is ONE denomination on the planet that is absolutely infallible/unaccountable when it comes to official matters of faith and morals - and that ONE, it itself claims is.... well, you know



- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

But yes, a lot of things in Catholicism are... well..... mostly swept under the rug these days. A teacher in my Catholic parish's First Communion Class flatly admitted that the RCC stopped teaching its Eucharistic Doctrine (Transubstantiation) to laity years ago and now teaches basically the Eastern Orthodox view and something pretty close to the Lutheran one, although it still uses the WORD "transubstantiation" just stripped of any meaning. Has it changed it's dogma? No way. -

Now that you mention it, I do remember seeing that appear on some Catholic sites and among posters. Trans means there's a changeover, but so long as there's still a mysterious alteration of some sort being claimed, the term is thought to be close enough.