|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 11, 2023 1:37:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2023 3:30:57 GMT
From the article: "Sometimes there is resistance, the bad kind. Not the good one. Because good resistance is that if I do a good project it is seen and discussed. The bad resistance is that which is discussed here and goes backwards looking for betrayal. But either I am naive or I don't listen to them".
If I weren't told who said this, I'd think it was something from Fidel Castro or even Kim Jong-un. Or, to be fair... D.onald T.rump.
"Good resistance is that if I do a good project it is seen and discussed..."Let that soak in. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 13, 2023 15:21:21 GMT
The Code of Canon Law defines heresy: "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" (Can. 751).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses a similar definition: "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" (CCC 2089).
Also Wikipedia citing the definition of 'heresy' in Catholic Dictionary (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33902) states there are four components which constitute heresy:
1. the person in question must have had a valid Christian baptism; 2. the person claims to still be a Christian; 3. the person publicly and obstinately denies or positively doubts a truth that the Catholic Church regards as revealed by God (through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition); 4. the disbelief must be morally cupable, that is, there must be a refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative.
I think from these it should be possible to workout what causes heresy.
Fair enough, but WRT the following: #3 - How far up in a hierarchy of truths do we find things that are "revealed by God through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition"? The Scriptures, that's pretty much a given, but what constitutes "Sacred Tradition"? Transubstantiation? (Not the Real Presence itself, but the explanation of what it is, the "how", if you will.) Abortion at some Point X before birth (and where is that "Point X"?)? The indissolubility of marriage? Paul VI's teaching that "each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life"? Certain Catholic social teachings such as the principle of subsidiarity? "Sacred Tradition", and its limits, are kind of blurry sometimes. The Baltimore Catechism goes so far as to say that such things as paintings, inscriptions on tombs, and monuments are part of Sacred Tradition --- I had to furrow my brow at this one --- and that Sacred Tradition may be found in the history of the Church. The latter is a kind of circular reasoning, and that's hard for me to defend. I don't deny that Sacred Tradition is a fount of truth, I just question what exactly comprises it, and where you draw the line. #4 - So this pretty much "lets off the hook" anyone who perceives the nature of the Church to be something other than it is, such as your typical Protestant. They know (if they bother to look it up) that the Catholic Church teaches certain things they do not believe, but they do not regard the Catholic Church as having the authority to teach these things. As I always say, Protestantism does not so much teach positive error (in most things), as they fail to teach things that are true --- they just omit them. I decided to have a look at Jone (¶123, p. 67 ff.) whose work I know you admire. If I summarise correctly he says that to be a heretic you need to be a Catholic and must know something has been defined as divinely revealed by the Church and is, therefore, a belief to which Catholics must submit but s/he rejects. On the other hand misunderstanding a particular belief is not heresy.
It really is not a black and white area and deciding if someone is a heretic is above our pay grade. Rejecting some divinely revealed truth is not alone sufficient. Culpability depends on the person's state of mind and why they choose not to believe something.
Knowing what heresy is I believe is sufficient for one to form an opinion of the circumstances in which heresy may be committed. However, deciding if a specific individual is a heretic and whether they are to be given a penalty is a matter for the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 13, 2023 15:38:32 GMT
Fair enough, but WRT the following: #3 - How far up in a hierarchy of truths do we find things that are "revealed by God through the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition"? The Scriptures, that's pretty much a given, but what constitutes "Sacred Tradition"? Transubstantiation? (Not the Real Presence itself, but the explanation of what it is, the "how", if you will.) Abortion at some Point X before birth (and where is that "Point X"?)? The indissolubility of marriage? Paul VI's teaching that "each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life"? Certain Catholic social teachings such as the principle of subsidiarity? "Sacred Tradition", and its limits, are kind of blurry sometimes. The Baltimore Catechism goes so far as to say that such things as paintings, inscriptions on tombs, and monuments are part of Sacred Tradition --- I had to furrow my brow at this one --- and that Sacred Tradition may be found in the history of the Church. The latter is a kind of circular reasoning, and that's hard for me to defend. I don't deny that Sacred Tradition is a fount of truth, I just question what exactly comprises it, and where you draw the line. #4 - So this pretty much "lets off the hook" anyone who perceives the nature of the Church to be something other than it is, such as your typical Protestant. They know (if they bother to look it up) that the Catholic Church teaches certain things they do not believe, but they do not regard the Catholic Church as having the authority to teach these things. As I always say, Protestantism does not so much teach positive error (in most things), as they fail to teach things that are true --- they just omit them. I decided to have a look at Jone (¶123, p. 67 ff.) whose work I know you admire. If I summarise correctly he says that to be a heretic you need to be a Catholic and must know something has been defined as divinely revealed by the Church and is, therefore, a belief to which Catholics must submit but s/he rejects. On the other hand misunderstanding a particular belief is not heresy.
It really is not a black and white area and deciding if someone is a heretic is above our pay grade. Rejecting some divinely revealed truth is not alone sufficient. Culpability depends on the person's state of mind and why they choose not to believe something.
Knowing what heresy is I believe is sufficient for one to form an opinion of the circumstances in which heresy may be committed. However, deciding if a specific individual is a heretic and whether they are to be given a penalty is a matter for the competent ecclesiastical authorities.
All points well made, but my question doesn't have to do with a person's knowledge or culpability, but rather, at what Point X does a doctrine or Catholic teaching become so crucial that denial of it constitutes heresy in the objective sense? |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Mar 16, 2023 14:45:26 GMT
All points well made, but my question doesn't have to do with a person's knowledge or culpability, but rather, at what Point X does a doctrine or Catholic teaching become so crucial that denial of it constitutes heresy in the objective sense? I do not believe you can separate the two. Heresy is not some intangible concept. It is committed by humans. It is their denial of a teaching of the Church that constitutes heresy. Therefore, their reasons and state of mind are important considerations. I do not know to what extent a person's denial of a teaching to which the Church requires them to submit their will would constitute heresy. I would imagine the Church would have to conduct a most thorough investigation before it declared someone a heretic. I am sure each case must have a degree of subjectivity. I doubt it can be decided solely objectively. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 16, 2023 20:42:00 GMT
All points well made, but my question doesn't have to do with a person's knowledge or culpability, but rather, at what Point X does a doctrine or Catholic teaching become so crucial that denial of it constitutes heresy in the objective sense? I do not believe you can separate the two. Heresy is not some intangible concept. It is committed by humans. It is their denial of a teaching of the Church that constitutes heresy. Therefore, their reasons and state of mind are important considerations. I do not know to what extent a person's denial of a teaching to which the Church requires them to submit their will would constitute heresy. I would imagine the Church would have to conduct a most thorough investigation before it declared someone a heretic. I am sure each case must have a degree of subjectivity. I doubt it can be decided solely objectively. I'm not at all talking about a person's relative culpability for it. I'm asking "where does it cross the line from non-heresy to heresy?" and, as a corollary, "why?". Deny that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity --- clearly heresy. Deny that the Bible is the Word of God --- ditto. Deny that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist --- ditto. Deny that transubstantiation is the way this may be (at least partially) explained --- how far from the line are we? Deny that all deliberate and complete sexual acts outside of marriage are gravely sinful in terms of the matter itself (setting aside sufficient reflection and full consent of the will) --- heresy, or just extreme temerity? Deny that "each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life" (here I refer to deliberate efforts to make the act itself infecund) --- are we out of the "heresy zone" yet, and if so, why? Opine that the agent who throws the switch that ends up running the train over the man tied to the track to save the 100 people on the train commits no sin whatsoever --- you tell me. Opine that the agent must let the 100 people hurtle over the cliff to their death to save the one man tied to the track? --- ditto here too. This is what I'm talking about --- a hierarchy of truths, you could say. Where's the "heresy zone", where's the "gray area", and where is there no heresy at all? And what has to happen for Vigano to cross that line that, in the opinion of Pope Francis, makes him no longer a Catholic (despite the fact, that according to our discussion above, he can never cease being one)? |
|
