Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

12 Heresies

Jun 2nd 2013 new
I was just digging through some old files and came across this list of heresies that I wrote and thought is worth sharing:
Jun 2nd 2013 new
I don't like this new forum software. Anyway, here are the 12 heresies:
  1. The history of the Catholic Church began with the Second Vatican Council.
  2. The concept of desuetude applies to moral law.
  3. The Church can change divine law.
  4. Only recent (i. e. post-1965) Church documents have any value.
  5. Conscience is always supreme.
  6. The exception disproves the rule.
    Corollary: There can be no rules, because there is always an exception.
  7. The sensus fidelium is what Catholics of the current generation have generally concluded to be correct.
  8. The sensus fidelium is as important as what the Pope and bishops teach.
  9. One can venerate a saint while dismissing his entire lifestyle and philosophy as inappropriate for modern times.
  10. In determining the morality of an act, one starts by evaluating contemporary community standards.
  11. Jesus told us to be non-judgmental, so we must never tell anyone that he may be sinning, or even speak out against sin, because that is judgmental.
  12. Jesus suffered and died for our sins so that we would never have to suffer or do penance ourselves.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
These really sound like objectively erroneous conclusions of an erroneous philosophy related to revealed truth... I would personally call them errors, not heresies... Heresy demands an obstinate rejection of a truth, once it has been explained with authority. I wonder if the people who spout this sort of nonsense actually have any notion of what they're talking about.
Jun 2nd 2013 new
I think conscience is supreme, in the sense that we are always bound to follow our conscience. The error is in forgetting that conscience is not infallible, while the magisterium is infallible.
Jun 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Florian-626971 said: I think conscience is supreme, in the sense that we are always bound to follow our conscience. The error is in forgetting that conscience is not infallible, while the magisterium is infallible.
The Church does have an infallible teaching office (i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium), but that is a subset of the ordinary magisterium of the Church which is fallible. Not every teaching from the magisterium of the Church is infallible; one must use the rule of faith to discern what is and is not bound upon the assent of faith (i.e., infallible).

Man's conscience is subject to authority and divine revelation. Man is bound to follow his conscience, but even so, he is bound to form his conscience upon truth gained by observation, right reason, true earthly authority and divine revelation.
Jun 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Florian-626971 said: I think conscience is supreme, in the sense that we are always bound to follow our conscience. The error is in forgetting that conscience is not infallible, while the magisterium is infallible.
We also have a moral obligation to properly form our consciences, where properly formed means to be in accord with the teachings of the magisterium (not whatever theologian calling themself Catholic who teaches what we want to hear). If we follow a conscience that is improperly formed due to our neglect of this duty, we are culpable in this regard.

Many people confuse passions (emotions) with conscience, which is a faculty of our intellect. Evaluation of the moral character of an act requires the application or reason and judgement, which may well be in opposition to our passions. One of the biggest problems in modern society is the widespread practice of giving passions supremacy over the intellect and reason: "I feel" vs. "I think" (the latter of which requires the ability to justify a source of your conclusion outside of ourselves and must recognize the authority of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals).

The more we sin, even venial sins, the more difficult it becomes to hear our true conscience and the more prone we are to being mislead by emotions manipulated by the forces of evil.

Jun 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: one must use the rule of faith to discern what is and is not bound upon the assent of faith (i.e., infallible).

However...

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, (adding) the body of believers.
[...]
It should be noted that the Latin sententia (generally translated into English as opinions) does not refer to a subjective judgment of individuals, each of which is equally valid in conscience, but to a theological judgment by recognized theologians and based on the Faith (Scripture and Tradition), including the definitive sententiae of the Magisterium, and supported by reason from the Faith as at least probable. An "opinion" can never be probable which occurs in a vacuum unsupported by evidence from the Sacred Tradition and the theological tradition.
[...]
definitive theological judgments of the ordinary magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary magisterium.

www.ewtn.com




Jun 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Jerry-74383 said: However...

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.
I'm not disputing this. I merely didn't add it. Of course there is a hierarchy of authority behind teachings, and the propositions given us by the ordinary magisterium, while fallible, do demand religious submission of the intellect and will.
Jun 3rd 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I'm not disputing this. I merely didn't add it. Of course there is a hierarchy of authority behind teachings, and the propositions given us by the ordinary magisterium, while fallible, do demand religious submission of the intellect and will.
The difficulty is that what you take for granted ("of course...") may be breaking news to many others. I know from previous discussions there are more than a few members of CM (and a significant body of theologians) who seem to believe they are free to ignore the ordinary magisterium (the body of Church teaching not revealed or declared infallibly).

Jun 3rd 2013 new
Thanks for cleaning up my messy post, Jerry. It looks a lot better with line breaks!
Posts 1 - 10 of 10