- This topic has 1 reply, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by Anonymous.
February 12, 2009 at 7:34 am #9107AnonymousInactive
If someone has studied the faith, but not yet become a Catholic, or has rejected Catholic teaching, after studing is, they would not be a formal heretic. Now if you ask me, (and I am biased, because I became a Catholic) they are someone who needs to ask more questions, or has been prejudiced against the faith by false ideas, or needs to pray, and be prayed for, so they can accept the truth that Jesus founded one Church, promised to remain with it, and has not turned away from His promise.
As far as the Pope having Political Power, and the Vatican being a sovern country, you betcha. If the Vatican was on the soil of another country it would be influenced by that country. The United Nations is in New York City, however the UN sits on International Property, with it’s own police, and laws. This way the UN is able to work independently of the USA, or the influence of any other country.
The Political power of the Vatican allowed it to help people like my family escape from Europe during WWII, it allowed for relief in POW and refugee camps over the past century. Italy was actually very Anti-Catholic from the early 1800s to recently. The Anti-Clerical crowds who massed in Rome at the Funeral of Pope Pius IX threatened to toss his body into the Tiber River. In order to protect Catholics from undue influence by Civil Governments, the Vatican should be independent. If you look at other Groups like the Calvanists, and the Anglicans, as well as many Lutherans when they where founded, they had to depend on the graces of the local Prince or King. In the case of Calvin, he ran both the Civil and Religious life of Geneva in his lifetime, and instituted public hangings of those who disagreed with his religious teachings.February 14, 2009 at 9:28 pm #9108AnonymousInactive"LARobert":2oly36uz wrote:or has rejected Catholic teaching, after studing is, they would not be a formal heretic.[/quote:2oly36uz]
I looked up the definition of heretic on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
and the second definition states: 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
They way you describe a person who may reject Catholic teaching is someone who"LARobert":2oly36uz wrote:needs to ask more questions, or has been prejudiced against the faith by false ideas, or needs to pray, and be prayed for, so they can accept the truth that Jesus founded one Church, promised to remain with it, and has not turned away from His promise.[/quote:2oly36uz]
It seems to me that you’re insulting those questioning Catholic doctrine. (I know that you are only stating you opinion. I feel like you have good intentions for your answers.)
I truly am trying my best to educate myself using both Catholic and Protestant sources but according to you it doesn’t seem enough…February 15, 2009 at 3:30 am #9113AnonymousInactive
I don’t claim infallibility, nor as I have mentioned before can a computer forum be exhaustive in covering all aspects of any given topic.
Your citation from a secular dictionary does give one aspect of heresy. However if you look in the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will find further (also not exaustive) aspects.
[quote:s7ni6bj0]Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy[/quote:s7ni6bj0]
As for the section of my comments above, I stand by them, as there was a question in the early 20th Century about Vincible and Invincible Ignorance, which my comment touched upon. That being, if someone is unaware that he or she has denied the teachings of the Catholic Church, or has been prejudiced against hearing the teachings of the Church he or she cannot be held liable. So a Protestant or a Catholic who does not understand the teachings of the Church and is misled into renouncing what he falsely believes is the Catholic Faith is not a formal heretic, because he is rejecting not what the Church teaches, but what he has been falsely led to believe is what the Church teaches.February 15, 2009 at 4:13 am #9117AnonymousInactive"LARobert":baplk5nb wrote:James:I don’t claim infallibility, nor as I have mentioned before can a computer forum be exhaustive in covering all aspects of any given topic.[/quote:baplk5nb]
I do understand that a computer forum cannot cover every aspect of the Catholic faith but rather give a different aspect."LARobert":baplk5nb wrote:So a Protestant or a Catholic who does not understand the teachings of the Church and is misled into renouncing what he falsely believes is the Catholic Faith is not a formal heretic, because he is rejecting not what the Church teaches, but what he has been falsely led to believe is what the Church teaches.[/quote:baplk5nb]
My friend from school was a very devout Catholic and went to confession often, went to church every sunday and prayed often. He’s in the situation like me and he’s been in the faith most of his life. He knew what the Church taught and he knew why Catholics do the things they do (such as fasting on Advent, the Sacrements, the honoring of the Saints, etc.) and he wants to leave. I’m not quite exactly sure what teachings but he denies a few and those teachings.February 15, 2009 at 5:18 am #9118AnonymousInactive
I’ll keep him in my prayers. I hope if there is something that he either does not understand or has been misled about that the situation is corrected.
I know many lifelong Catholics who have been persuaded by the arguments of various Protestants which misrepresent either an aspect of the Faith that they are not well versed in, or contort the Catholic Truth to make it represent what it does not really teach. The reality is we can’t get into your friend’s mind and really know what is motivating him. Sometimes in youth, a person rebels against what he has been told as an assertion of his independence, anyone who has been raised without questioning or exposure to other opinions can be shocked by what they hear and question the authority they grew up with. If your friend is going through that, or you yourself, the best we can do is to try and offer correct, and honest answers, and pray for God’s grace to enlighten us all.
Some of the greatest Saints have gone through times where they questioned their faith. Sometimes these periods in our life strengthen our faith, because rather than just believe the teachings because someone in authority taught them, we assent to them for ourselves.February 15, 2009 at 5:26 am #9120AnonymousInactive"LARobert":2zm8pnkf wrote:If your friend is going through that, or you yourself, the best we can do is to try and offer correct, and honest answers, and pray for God’s grace to enlighten us all.[/quote:2zm8pnkf]
God bless you LARobert and all here at About Catholics ” title=”Smile” /> I will study more and I’ll tell my friend to do the same.February 15, 2009 at 5:33 am #9124AnonymousInactive
Do you live in the U.S.?February 15, 2009 at 5:35 am #9126AnonymousInactive
Yes I do.February 15, 2009 at 5:44 am #9129AnonymousInactive
If you would like, send me your address off line and some of the major issues you are questioning and I’ll send you a couple of books (no charge) to review later in the week when I go to the post office.February 15, 2009 at 5:46 am #9131AnonymousInactive
Ok. That would be great. I love to read ” title=”Smile” />March 6, 2009 at 12:01 am #9208AnonymousInactive"LARobert":1mwwqma1 wrote:When he debated Eck, most historians would say that Eck won the debate, and Luther not having any reply made his famous, “Here I stand, I can do no other” statement.[/quote:1mwwqma1]
I believe you are either talking about the Leipzig debate or the Diet of Worms.
It was at the Diet of Worms were Luther had to defend his writings. This is were he made the “Here I stand” speech. However…
[quote:1mwwqma1]As to the doctrinal passages in his books, he (Luther,) agreed to retract any any that should be proved contrary to Scripture. To this Eck, in Latin, made an objection that well expressed the view of the Church:
‘Martin, your plea to be heard form Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Huss…How can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgement above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than all of them? You have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect Lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the Apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, and defined by the Church…and which we are forbidden by the Pope and the Emperor to discuss, lest there be no end to debate. I ask you, Martin-answer candidly and without distinctions-do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?
[u:1mwwqma1]The Reformation[/u:1mwwqma1]by Will Durant[/quote:1mwwqma1]
Then in German, Luther replied,
[quote:1mwwqma1]’Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason-I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other- my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.’
The earliest printed version added the words: “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.” The words, though not recorded on the spot, my nevertheless be genuine, because the listeners at the moment may have have been too moved to write.
[u:1mwwqma1]Here I Stand[/u:1mwwqma1] by Roland H. Bainton[/quote:1mwwqma1]
As for the Leipzig debate,
[quote:1mwwqma1]As might be expected, the debate revealed that Eck was more of an authority in Scholastic theology and on the period of the Reformed Councils than was Luther, but he was no match for Luther in the early history of the Christian Church either in his familiarity with the sources or in their critical evaluation.
[u:1mwwqma1]Luther and his Times[/u:1mwwqma1] by E.G. Schwiebert[/quote:1mwwqma1]
In my opinion, since both men are well educated and excel in some subjects but may struggle in others is quite unfair to say who is the the true victor of the debates.March 6, 2009 at 5:01 am #9209AnonymousInactive
Will Durant was raised a Catholic and turned away from the Catholic Church in his early adulthood when he wanted to live a life contrary to Catholic Moral teaching. Near the end of his life he returned to the Catholic Church and admitted his anti-Catholic bias in his writings where based on his rejection of the moral teachings of the Church in his early life. Happily he returned to the bosom of the Church on his deathbed, but was unable to revise all the books which had been in print over his very prolific carrer.
E.G. Schwiebert’s books (published by Concordia, a Lutheran publishing house) would of course take Luther’s side of the debate.
While I can bring up any number of Catholic sources that take the opposite position, such arguments will end up having us chase our tails. Obviously I don’t take the Lutheran claims as accurate, and I do admit to biases on the part of some of the older Catholic books on Luther. However I still stand with most modern historians that Luther was unable to respond to Eck’s arguments, or give a reply that was sufficient.March 7, 2009 at 5:04 pm #9210AnonymousInactive"LARobert":1hlgf653 wrote:However I still stand with most modern historians that Luther was unable to respond to Eck’s arguments, or give a reply that was sufficient.[/quote:1hlgf653]
I would like for you to post a small list of these modern historians.
Thank you.March 8, 2009 at 6:21 pm #9212AnonymousInactive
I’ll add more when I get home and can look at my library, but for now these are a few off the top of my head. Two where Protestants, (one Lutheran) ministers who became Catholics, so they understood the issues from both sides, and I think are very honest in dealing with the subject. I’ll add more when I get home from a family visit sometime mid-week.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) wrote historical books on Luther and other founders of Protestant Churches, I don’t have a copy in my library, I got it from a local University Library, read it and returned it. I can’t remember the title.
Hubert Jedin, Several works on the Council of Trent, in which he discusses the reasons for calling the council. He does not shy away from the delapetated condition of some of the Catholic Church’s membership at the time, but also goes into the issues surrounding Luther, Calvin and other founders of Protestant Churches
Msgr. Philip Hughes
I include him because he is (I think) fair. He started his clerical career as an Evangelical Protestant Minister (Low Church Anglican), converted to the Catholic Church. Before his conversion to the Catholic Church, he was an Oxford Scholar, like John Henry Newman, and Msgr. Ronald Knox, who where also Evangelical Anglican clergymen, reading through the history of the early Church, and the development of Protestantism, they all came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one Church founded by Jesus. His three best books, (each three volumes) are a History of the Church, A History of the Reformation in England, and A History of the Reformation. The first and last where so popular that you can usually find copies of “A popular history;” which where one volume paperback editions.
Louis Bouyer: (1913 ‚Äì 2004) Former Lutheran Minister from France, he converted to the Catholic Faith before the Second Vatican Council, and was consulted as an expert at the Council. He wrote many books, the most important to this discussion is The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (2001)
John Henry Cardinal Newman, another famous Convert from Low Church Anglicanism, to the Catholic Church wrote on Luther’s errors, but his work is seen by most open minded scholars as very heavy handed, in his attacks at Luther and his works, and I would not include in a fair discussion.March 9, 2009 at 9:15 pm #9214AnonymousInactive
Back home Wednesday, I did think of another historian an Philosopher, Jaques Martain, started life a Rationalist, very anti-Catholic, converted with his wife Raissa in 1904. Studied Science, became interested in History and Philosophy while in College. Wrote a book called, [u:u2asqzdz][i:u2asqzdz]“Three Reformers Luther Descartes Roussea”[/i:u2asqzdz][/u:u2asqzdz] which covers some of the issues between Catholic Philosophy and Luther.April 21, 2009 at 4:49 am #9311AnonymousInactive
Are most of these historians converts to the Roman Catholic Faith?April 21, 2009 at 5:19 am #9314AnonymousInactive
They are, Hughes and Jedin are the only Historians (by profession) the others are Philosophers and in the case of Newman, he was a great scholar, but wrote on several issues. Erik Erikson was a non-Catholic, and a Psychiatrist, he wrote, “Young Man Luther” which was a forensic psychiatric history.April 22, 2009 at 4:35 am #9316AnonymousInactive
Do you believe that these Philosophers and Historians are precise with their informaion?April 22, 2009 at 5:40 am #9319AnonymousInactive
As I posted previously, I trust them, and posted them because they all came from Anti-Catholic backrounds, prior to the study of history, philosophy and theology, coming to the conclusion that they could no longer support the previous belief systems. Louis Bouyer, was a Lutheran Minister prior to his conversion. His book, the Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is a very good review of the issue.
The only one I would warn you about is John Henry Cardinal Newman, is one of the most respected scholars and writers of the 1800s in England, I do think he is a little harsh in his treatment of Martin Luther, he tends to put his personal opinions in his treatment of the subject, and is not as objective as the others.April 23, 2009 at 2:37 am #9321AnonymousInactive"Jon":wpnuj53g wrote:You might be able to find some on Jack Chick’s website (to which I will not post the link, but you can find on Google).[/quote:wpnuj53g]
I just checked out his website and his newest one titled “It’s All About You” not only is it targeting Catholics but other Christians and other Faiths! It said that “Religion pretends to be holy. They put their own followers into bondage.”
How can people stand to read this rubbish??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.