Heretics?

[Tibby]

A few upstarts break off, and it becomes an issue of "Ownership" now? Can't be all just BE Christian? Ownership is one thing , having proper Authority on Earth to keep Christianity from resembling a three-ring circus is another. Look around at the anarchy of “the church.” All the heretics running around, Gnostics, Arians, televangelists. He is a God of order, not chaos. Why wouldn’t God set a structure up to keep things in there proper place? It isn’t an issue of who “owns” the Church, but who cares for it?

[The Crusader]

A few upstarts break off, and it becomes an issue of "Ownership" now? Can't be all just BE Christian? Ownership is one thing , having proper Authority on Earth to keep Christianity from resembling a three-ring circus is another. Look around at the anarchy of “the church.” All the heretics running around, Gnostics, Arians, televangelists. He is a God of order, not chaos. Why wouldn’t God set a structure up to keep things in there proper place? It isn’t an issue of who “owns” the Church, but who cares for it?

 Gnostics, Arians, televangelists and Roman Catholics

The Crusader

[sincereheart]

This is the type of questionthe Vatican II tried to answer. The rulings made about the Protestants there made hunderds of years ago. It was time to rethink things. So they did. The Bible is the only unchanging word of God, the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues. As I said in a prevous posts "Someone had to fix Trent"

So it's more a before/after VII question?   In my cyber-wanderings, I've seen Protestants termed 'heretics' frequently on RCC sites. I'm trying to find out if it's the 'official' view or just some personal views.

Yes and no.
Tibby is wrong - the RCC defines the church to be the RCC plus the handful of Eastern Catholic churches in full communion with the RCC.

On the other hand, you're only a heretic if you deny a truth that the church say's you must believe, which is not everything that the church teaches to be true.

Ok, so what are 'the truths' called? And if I'm following this, the church may say something that they find to be true but it may not be the 'official' position on it?  

[ebia]

On the other hand, you're only a heretic if you deny a truth that the church say's you must believe, which is not everything that the church teaches to be true.[/i]

Ok, so what are 'the truths' called? And if I'm following this, the church may say something that they find to be true but it may not be the 'official' position on it?  

It's entirely possible for the Church to teach something as true, without denying it being heresy.  Heresy is denying a really key point - the trinity say.  

I'm a bit more up on the Orthodox position on this, which is that the Othodox churches have only a very few dogmas - things you have to sign up for if you want to be an Othodox member in good standing, so to speak.  Denying one of these would (at least in theory) lose you your membership, and might possibly constitute heresy.

On top of those small number of dogmas, the Orthodox have a huge amount of doctrines - other teachings (like the enduring virginity of Mary, say), that the church as a whole takes to be true, but you could still be a member in good standing without believing, and denying it certainly wouldn't make you a heretic (although it might make you unpopular if you made too much noise about it).

The RCC has vastly more dogma - stuff you really are supposed to sign up for if you're a Catholic (at least in theory).  However, as far as I know denying some bits of that doesn't make you a heretic, but I couldn't say for sure what does and what doesn't.

[sincereheart]

I think I have it.... Thanks!

Where does Episcopalian fall into it? Do they fall under Catholic?  

I had heard that the Episcopalian church is like the Catholic church minus the Mary aspects?  

What's the difference between 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'?

And what is 'Orthodox'?

*drowns in confusion*

[ebia]

Episcopalians are the American part of the Anglican Communion.   Anglicans are a pretty diverse lot - at one extream they're barely distinguisable from Roman Catholics (Mary included).  At the other, its very conservative evangelical.   Christians of just about any hue can find a place in Anglicanism, which is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.  The only key fundamentals are the bible, the historic creeds, and the three-fold order (bishops, priests & decons).

What's the difference between 'Catholic' and 'Roman Catholic'?

There are a handful of small, eastern catholic churches recognised as catholic by rome.  essentially they have the same theology as rome but the same worship style as the orthodox churches.
Then there are a load of spin-off churches that call themselves catholic, like tibby's.

And what is 'Orthodox'?

These are the other ancient churches, that split from Rome when the Pope started changing stuff like the nicene creed on his own without consulting the whole church.  Historically they exist in eastern europe and the middle east, although they're pretty well represented in "new" countries like the USA and Australia due to immigration.  Orthodox churches include Greek Orthodox, Antiocian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc, etc.   They have much better concept of the mystery of God than the western churches who (influenced by Rome) try to nail it all down in precise terms, and a much hightened sense of the importance and power of the Holy Spirit, who doesn't get relegated to being the least important of the 3 in the way that He tends to be in the west.  Historically they have been very poor on missioning and talking to people outside their own ethnic groups.

*drowns in confusion*

's probably not going to get simpler I'm afraid.

[sincereheart]

Thanks!


's probably not going to get simpler I'm afraid.

Now THAT I do understand!  

[The Crusader]

Behavior is the mirror
In which everyone
Shows their image….

Happy New Year!

The Crusader

[sincereheart]

"For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart( ), and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).

These two seem to contradict each other.   So is this a matter of 'dogma' vs. 'doctrine'?  

[ebia]

"For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart( ), and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).

These two seem to contradict each other.   So is this a matter of 'dogma' vs. 'doctrine'?  

The first one doesn't say only members of "Christ’s Catholic Church" can be saved.  At first sight it appears to, but it actually says only through that church can the fullness of salvation be obtained.   That leaves open the fact that others may be saved, through the work of the Catholic Church (without necessarly even coming into contact with it).   I think you'll find the catholic position is along those lines these days.

[Symphony]

sincereheart, my karma ran over your dogma.  

A few upstarts break off, and it becomes an issue of "Ownership" now? Can't be all just BE Christian? Ownership is one thing , having proper Authority on Earth to keep Christianity from resembling a three-ring circus is another. Look around at the anarchy of “the church.” All the heretics running around, Gnostics, Arians, televangelists. He is a God of order, not chaos. Why wouldn’t God set a structure up to keep things in there proper place? It isn’t an issue of who “owns” the Church, but who cares for it?


Thank you, Tibby.  Order is important.  Some good points.

[michael_legna]

Tibby said:
I think you misunderstand, A4C. By the Church, they are Referring the Christianity. By the Catholic belief, Baptist, Methodists, all true Christians are part of the “Catholic” church. When they say “The Church” they mean Christianity. If you had bother to read more then the quotes, you would know this. This is clearly stated by the Catechism. When they say “No one can be saved outside the church” What they are saying is you have to be Christian, no Muslims, no Buddhist, no Taoists, on Gnostics, no Tribal shaman, no one who isn’t Christian. Do you not agree? Because, this is what they are talking about. If you truly read the Catechism, you would know this.
(Re:Roman Catholic Religion
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2003, 04:38:04 PM »)

  But the 1971 Catholic Almanac defines "Heresy" as: "the formal and obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person, who remains a nominal Christian, of any truth which must be believed as a matter of divine and Catholic faith. Formal heresy involves deliberate resistance to the authority of God who communicates revelation through Sacred Scripture and tradition and the teaching authority of the Church. Obstinate refusal to accept the infallible teaching of the Church constitutes the crime of heresy.
  Formal heretics (Canon 1325 of the Code of Canon Law) automatically incur the penalty of excommunication. Material heretics are those who, in good faith and without formal obstinancy, do not accept articles or matters of divine and Catholic faith."

Since the Almanac is from 1971, I'm wondering if the info is outdated maybe? Has the definition changed? And if it still holds, wouldn't that put all Protestants under the category of 'heretics'?

 
 

Yes, formal heretics are those who know the truth that the Church presents and through their own obstinancy refuse to accept it.  They are indeed at risk of not being saved.  I don't know of anyone who fits that category.  Most either don't accept the truth because they do not understand it or don't accept it.  Though I suppose it could happen that someone accept the truth of the Catholic Churches position and still refused to become a member, but that seems hypocritical or insane.


I suspect even most Protestant fall under the category of material heretics, those who simply have honestly not been convinced of the Churches position.  These heretics are not automatically considered to be at risk of damnation.  

If you were to obstinantly resist the charming, intelligent, convincing arguments of someone teaching the Catholic position (like me   ), even if you knew in your heart he was right then you would move into the category of formal heretic.

At least this is the way I understand it.  I hope this clears up the confusion.

[michael_legna]

What are you accusing me of not looking up?  The official position of the RCC is that other churches are not churches (ie, not part of the one Church) at all, they are "ecclesial communities".

Other than that, I agree that the Nicene Creed (without fililoque), as the only truly whole church creed, is a pretty good standard.

I am glad you accept the Nicene Creed (though I doubt you accept it the way it was intended and the way I accept it - talking mainly about the communion of saints here which was placed in the creed purposefully to include the saints in heaven and earth supporting the idea of prayer to saints).

Also I happen to have done a lot of study on the fililoque and would be willing to bet you don't even know what it is in the definition that is the source of the real controversy.  The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not the issue, it is more complex than that.  The Holy Spirit obviously proceeds from the Son here on earth as He gave it to the Apostles in John 20:22.  There are other examples but that should suffice.  

The real disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church on this issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds "eternally" from the Son as it does from the Father.   Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.  There is no scripture to support the position of "eternally" proceeding from the Son or not "eternally" proceeding from the Son.    The entire argument is based on Tradition, something both Orthodox and Catholics accept but Protestants do not.  So I am not sure how you made you decision to not accept it as the only source you rely on scripture supports (as far as it is discussed) the idea that the spirit does proceed from the Son.

[michael_legna]

You guys agree? You argee on what? You agree on the question? You agree  on what?

This is the type of questionthe Vatican II tried to answer. The rulings made about the Protestants there made hunderds of years ago. It was time to rethink things. So they did. The Bible is the only unchanging word of God, the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues. As I said in a prevous posts "Someone had to fix Trent"

A Romen would be better suited to answer this question. Where is good ol Mikey at?

"the Church may have to change to as times change, to address new issues."

Why?

Hebrews 13:8.  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

the Church does not change in matters of doctrine or dogma, though it may add to their understanding of doctrinal issues as man progresses since although God does not change, man's understanding is not perfect and so it changes.

The Church does change issues of discipline, but those are in relation to the directive of Heb 13:17 and do not imply any change of God.

[michael_legna]

The formation of the RCC in the 4th century is a major, if not the major, defining testimony to the authenticity of the Gospel narrative.

The testimony is in the name of an organization, or a "church", known as the RCC--and has been known as that generally since that time, for seventeen centuries.

It is a "testimony" becuase it follows the manner of earthly human behavior to the very letter, human behavior being what it is.

Attach significance to human conduct of any kind, and immediately you attract attention and, therefore, immediately, the question of ownership, jurisdiction and, "property rights".

The significance of the human "conduct" as recorded in the Gospels is of such a sort--that is, human resurrection from the dead--that by it's very definition it would naturally attract attention and "ownership" of the first order, by virtual default.  Like salesmen running to a hot new gizmo to sell on the open market, it would be irresistable.  The fact that this in fact is what happened, is a testimony to the Gospel narrative itself.  It must be true, why else the ownership claim of the very first order?

If the Gospel narrative could at all be shown to be false, this entire "property rights" issue, would be meaningless.  Obviously, no one is going to fight over a property that would then have no inherrent value--that is, the "gospel message".


It only makes sense then there would be an ongoing ownership "battle" for the rights to the gospel message--as this thread demonstrates:  "Heretics".  And it would not be any great surprise if that ownership were nothing but simply of the earth, carnal, self-interested sort.  After all, this is what our Creator came to save us from--ourselves.

If it hadn't been the RCC who claimed "ownership" of the Church, then it would have been some other group, or organization.

The moral to the story is, there had to be someone who was going to claim jurisdiction, as long as the Lord tarries.  The "property"--that is, the Good News--is too wonderful, too beautiful, to go unnoticed.  It only makes sense that there would be earthly claims--jurisdictional claims--made to that property.

Your theory might hold some water if it wasn't based on incorrect history.  All that happened in the 4th century was the addition of the name Roman to the Catholic Church to indicated it had been accepted as the official religion of the state.  All unbiased and secular historians and most reputable Protestant historians recognize the RCC as being able to trace its history all the way back through the Bishops of Rome to the Apostle Peter.   Peter was established as the leader of Christ's Church on earth by Christ Himself.  So we are not attaching any significance to human "conduct" but instead attaching significance to the conduct of Jesus.