That is the danger to your soul and worse other souls. We all must follow our path but unless God calls me directly... I wouldn't want to be the one who led souls away from the church. But good luck on your mission. Brother al
When a pope says the vast majority of sacramental marriages are not sacramental, and that cohabitation often is, even conferring grace, excusing that error with emotion laden appeals to situation ethics (that was condemned by prior popes), or "mercy" and "accompaniment" (where's that word in Scripture?), what exactly are laity to call this if not material heresy? It's not "formal heresy" in the eyes of the Church, but it is indeed material heresy. If we made the distinction between material and formal heresy and colloquial use versus Church defined use in each and every post, would that calm our overly scrupulous worries? (I'm just frustrated, I'm not angry at anyone here.)
Dolours passing judgement is only for God, but we we see words and actions from the Vatican that (at least) infer a heretical mindset (the secular media certainly interpret what has been stated by the pope in a wordly way) do not the faithful have a duty not to disregard it, rather than allowing our silence to entrench this mindset? God Bless.
Fortunately we are not the ones leading souls away from the church. That is being carried out by men fighting for admission of those in irregular unions to the Eucharist and calling the sin of cohabitation grace conferring. Why is it folks are so obsessed with those few defending the Faith but silent in the face of men fighting for admission of those in irregular unions to the Eucharist and calling the sin of cohabitation grace conferring? Diabolical disorientation.
I won't argue with you BrianK, you are an old lovable holy rascal, doing your best. Who am I to judge you.
Yes, some of what he says comes across as heresy, therefore, I feel vindicated in saying so where I see contradictions with Church teaching. We can say that what he is reported as saying is heretical, but we can't actually say that the Pope is a heretic because that would be condemning the person. I'm not explaining that very well. It is the duty of the clergy to speak out against the heresies and defend the faith. Our own sphere of influence is limited to those with whom we interact and I feel that as long as I defend and hold fast to Church teaching in my own circle, the rest is up to God. But some of us are not being silent. We are expressing our concerns despite being accused of the mortal sin of hatred of the Pope. Labelling people as haters is a very familiar and effective tactic of liberals. It appears to me that the greatest long term damage that this papacy will inflict on the Church will come under synodality, giving individual bishops the cover of unity where effectively they will be taking their dioceses into schism. Faithful bishops need to step up to the plate despite the likelihood that they will be attacked and vilified by the vast number of Catholics who dissent from what has always been taught by the Church. The problem I see with bishops speaking out now is that it will destroy their chances of being promoted to Cardinal, leaving a clear field for the liberals to elect Pope Francis 11. The Pope is old, he can't go on forever and if an orthodox pope succeeds him the damage can be repaired before it spreads throughout the universal Church. This presents them with a real dilemma.
Clarification: In this case we are referring to material heresy. When error against the teaching of the Church is spread, that by definition is heresy. When a person spreads heresy, he is by definition known as a "heretic." Using that word accurately is a proper form of simple English communication. It is not "condemning a person," because material heresy can be completely blameless. And the term can be employed by the laity, because of the above. Saying someone is guilty of formal heresy, and is, therefore a formal heretic, does impute liability on the part of the formal heretic. That is why only the Church can employ the term, and "what you hold bound on earth is held bound in heaven." It is gave matter to call someone a formal heretic; it is common and correct (despite its modern fall into disuse) to call someone a material heretic. It is not judging a soul, it is a simple statement of fact by a well formed Catholic. Even if it applied to a Churchman. Even if that Churchman happens to be a pope. There is no sin in this. Indeed. And it is obviously a case of projection on their part. Pray for them, for they often, in this time of diabolical disorientation, do not know what they do.
The moment you say heresy or heretic you are drawing a line on the sand. You are basically choosing sides in a war. It's always ok to debate... that's what the Cardinals do. But by calling someone a heretic you have gone past debate and have entered total separation from the church. Now you have the church of Brian versus the Church of the Holy Father. Like I stated before...if that is your mission then May God be on your side. Brother al
You obviously have not read the thread. If you do not understand the communication and theology distinctions being made, you might want to refrain from condemning others here.
That's very unfair. We all belong to the Church of Jesus and we all have an obligation to defend the faith handed down to us by Jesus through the apostles. Anyone, even the Pope, who appears to deviate from that teaching has an obligation to clarify his position to save giving scandal to the body of Christ (the faithful). Brian has explained clearly why he believes the Pope has fallen into heresy. The Pope has made little or no attempt to clarify his weird statements or his appalling Apostolic Exhortation.
Fair Just I just stated a simple fact. It is ok to debate but if you use the words heresy or heretic you draw the line. Has any of the Cardinals or Bishops used those words? No Heresy and heretic have a very specific meaning and you join the ranks of Martin Luther. Heresy and heretic have significant consequences. In the past, I have called some of your (sorry people on MOG) posts heresy. But to use the words against the Holy Father is a attack against the Holy Mother Church. Very dangerous. I have not said anything to anyone personally. Just to restate. Those words have great meaning and consequences. Brother al ir
I don't recall ever posting anything heretical. I have pointed out discrepancies between what we have been taught by the Church and statements by the Pope and some Bishops. I have also pointed out discrepancies between statements and actions by the Pope. It isn't heresy to expect the Pope to teach clearly and consistently and to point out his failure to do so. Neither is it heresy to say that the Pope is not hand-picked by the Holy Spirit. Brian has explained why he feels justified in calling the Pope a heretic. (I don't consider myself qualified to make such a definitive statement). Why don't you justify your own statement against Brian rather than hiding behind the claim that saying the Holy Father is in heresy is an attack against the Church when Brian truly believes that in conscience that his claim is justified? Was Cardinal Schonborn a Protestant when giving Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried when doing so had been explicitly prohibited by a previous Pope?
It might not be heresy to say the Pope was not picked by Holy Spirit. But that would mean God doesn't elect Pope, man does...and that is anti-church and God. Brian can shout heresy and heretic from the mountain tops...but he has to understand the consequences of his actions. His conscious can lead him to do and say anything. Brother al
It's a shame, but also hauntingly understandable, that the " spirit of VII" sought to eliminate the word "heresy" from the modern lexicon. Whereas the difference between "material heresy" and "formal heresy" was fully understood by a chatechized Catholic then, and the use of that term was common, now it's suddenly verboten. But not so strange, really. The "spirit of VII"s assault on the word "heresy" has achieved its desired effect, in this thread and in the world; heresies and heretics are yawned at, while those who correctly employ the word are "attackers," "haters," etc., condemned to eternal perdition. Kinda like "when good things will be called bad, and when bad things, good." And "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God." All with a smile on their face, and a self assurance they are right, and right in assigning those who defend the Faith to perdition.
Protestantism is the agenda to admit those in irregular unions to the Holy Eucharist; Protestantism is making annulments so cheap and easy that they become "Catholic divorce." Protestantism is trying to make divorce and remarriage commonplace, and calling "Pharasaical" the opposition to the practice of the Pharisees in Scripture, and making celibacy for Latin Rite priests a thing of the past. The prophecies that foretell the spread of Protestantism into the very heart of the Church are fulfilled in our day.
