Heretics?

[sincereheart]

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Since the Almanac is from 1971, I'm wondering if the info is outdated maybe?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'?

 
 

[The Crusader]

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'?

 
 

I agree

[Petro]

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'?

 
 

Not only does the Roman Catholic church, define itself as "The" Church, when speaking of Chritisnity, it is the pillar and ground of truth of 1 Tim 3:15.

But, it decides who is and who isn't a heretic, based on whether people believe her doctrines or not.

Not whether persons adhere to what the Word of God teaches.

This made clear by their canon, which excommunicates anyone who denies, her teachings, today, and considers a heretic anyone who won't accept her doctrines.

Better to be excommunicated or viewed as a heretic, then burn in eternal fire, I say.

I Agree...


Blessings,
Petro

[Tibby]

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?

[ebia]

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 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.

[Tibby]

Can't be bothered to look anything up, can you, Ebia?

As Ebia said, you must believe the truth to be a true Christian. The Nicene Creed is a good rule to follow. Normally group that don’t believe it are said to be heretical.

[ebia]

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.

[ollie]

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.

[ollie]

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.

Does the RCC recognize the church that is mentioned in the Bible? Christ's church?
Does the RCC match the biblical description and identifying marks of the church as given by God through Christ in His word.
The true measure of Christ's church is if it is as the scriptures reveal it to be.

[Tibby]

Ebia- Being an "ecclesial community" is one thing, that doesn't mean they arn't Chrisitans, and as Christians, they are "The Church"

Ollie- As to your first post, I think you grasps what I was saying. Jesus Christ and his word are the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The Church on this world has to change, so that is can stay with Gods word, while facing the issues of the day.

Now, your second post, Yes, the RCC matches the biblical description and identifying marks of the church just as good as any other church on this Earth today.

[ebia]

Ebia- Being an "ecclesial community" is one thing, that doesn't mean they arn't Chrisitans, and as Christians, they are "The Church"

I agree with you, but Cardinal Ratzinger doesn't.

[Tibby]

Sorry, you are goingto have to bother to look it up before I believe that.

[ebia]

Well, he's not said it outright in so many words, but that's what the leaders of all the main protestant churches (including the Anglican Communion - probably the protestant church in closest dialog with Rome) took his note, combined with Dominus Iesus to mean;  a huge step backwards in ecumenical relationships from Vatican II

[Symphony]

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.

[ollie]

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.

Very interesting thought.