Just curious?

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 04, 1999

Answers

Heresy? No, mislead, Yes. One cannot be guilty of Heresy unless one knows the true teaching of the Catholic Faith and willfully rejects it. Even though they know it is true.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 04, 1999.

I agree with Br. Rich for to be sin I think we must be aware of doing wrong towards God The Father. Are we to blame a child for not knowing he/she is doing wrong. As an adult we are responsible for the sin if we know the child has not been given the word. I belive that is the gift called Mission.

Peace And Well Being

Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 05, 1999.

Then why does my "catholic" NAB say they are?

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 05, 1999.

jamey: may be they are what some catholic writers call "heretics in good faith", namely those who deny some teachings of the church without any GUILT of their own.

ENRIQUE

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 05, 1999.

I don't doubt that some individuals are. One cannot imply however that all Protestants and Quakers are.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 05, 1999.

Br Rich,

I agree the thoughts that a person who has never heard of Jesus will so be judged accordingly. However, that is not what the definition imply's. The "implication" is just what the Catholic definition is in my NAB. Also, there are a lot of other "faiths" included with it. And, I do not see the "church" or any one else as having that right of judgement for those on the "outside" as the Bible says - for Christ has not come back.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 05, 1999.

The Catholic Church speaks for Christ and acts with His authority.

The Catholic definition " A Baptized person, who while retaining the name Christian, OBSTINATELY denies or doubts a known Truth of the Catholic Faith. Such persons choose on their own authority what beliefs to accept or reject contrary to the Truths revealed by God and taught infallibly by His Church"

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 05, 1999.

"truths" such as 'eternal' souls, 'hell fire' for us mere humans, and even trinity -never mentioned only "impled" in the Bible.

Mat 24:24; Mark 13:22 sound familier or just coincidence

The search,

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 06, 1999.

But again you seem to miss an important point concerning Divine Revelation as the Scriptures say "not everything is written in the Scriptures" Christ told the Church that the Holy Spirit would "teach them all things" Again as the Scriptures state "The pillar and foundation of truth is The Church" All Divine Revelation was entrusted to the Church including the part that was written down, the Scriptures and the part that was not, The Apostolic Tradition.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

Jamey,

The fire and brimstone God you refer to is from old Judiac ways. With Christ He brought Peace Forgiveness and most of all gentleness. That is the formula I try to follow.

Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 07, 1999.

If they do then that is their problem. Protestants and Quakers believe that Catholics are guilty of heresy - a little humility would do everyone some good...

-- Matthew (u05mdp@abdn.ac.uk), June 07, 1999.

Jean,

Just wanted to point out that while the New Covenant is indeed dominated by demonstrations of God's love and forgiveness, God has not changed from the OT to the NT. It's just that Jesus took God's wrath upon Himself on the cross so that all who embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior do not have to face that wrath.

The judgement and wrath of God can still be seen in the NT through the deaths of Ananais and Sapphira in Acts, as well as the Great White Throne of Judgement and the lake of fire in Revelations.

-- David (David@matt6:33.com), June 07, 1999.

Catholic theology makes a distinction between "material heresy", i.e. holding false views proper, and "actual heresy" i.e. subscribing to those views with full knowledge and culpability. This answers your question Jamey. When I was a Protestant I was a material heretic because I held false doctrinal views. But for a number of reasons (upbringing, ignorance, etc.) I was not fully culpable and therefore would not be viewed by the Catholic Church as an "actual" heretic. Does this help?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999.

"When I was a Protestant I was a material heretic because I held false doctrinal views. "

This is some of what I'm refering to as when Luther, and his "thesis" pointed out at the begining of the Reformation. His answers are from the Bible and not the "church."

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 07, 1999.

Br. Rich,

"But again you seem to miss an important point concerning Divine Revelation as the Scriptures say "not everything is written in the Scriptures"

To your quote, everything questioned or pointed out IS in the Scriptures. Whether I agree with "your" interpretation is the issue. Because you need your church's say-so, I do not. I use the Bible. Simply becuase so far there has not been a real indication as to Truth, according to these Scriptures "you" are saying the "church" has rights to. So far I haven't asked any questions as to "revelation" that is not given in the text itself. And, what did Jesus tell Peter "My Father has revealed this to you." No "church" was involved. That's how Paul was called. It's even how most priest believed to be.

As to "Catholics" being that true "church" answer, please, does the members of that "church" show True Love for one another?

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 07, 1999.

The Scriptures come to us through the Church. I look back on the interpretation of the Church over the last 2000 years to understand how a passage has always been understood. Then within that understanding how it applies to me today.

-- Br. Rich S.F.O. (repsfo@prodigy.net), June 07, 1999.

Jamey,

Your very good question regarding true love hit me deeply. Unfortunately this frail human creature is forever striving to offer that very thing. Perhaps I never will as a man.

Peace And Well Being.

Jean B.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 08, 1999.

No, Jamey, Luther's answers are from his personal interpretation of the Bible. Big difference.

Now the question is, why should I believe Luther's personal interpretation? He came up with many twistings of the Scriptures that nobody before him had ever thought of before. Take "justification by faith alone" for example. That is not in the Bible and Luther had to add the word "alone" to his translation to get it there. Which is more likely, that the belief of all Christians for 1500 years prior to Luther is wrong and he is right, or that he is wrong and the Holy Spirit led the other Christians correctly?

As for Peter not needing a "church" to reveal things to him, well, he was an Apostle; he received direct revelation from God. I'm not an Apostle; neither are you. The Scriptures call the Church, not every individual Christian, the "pillar and foundation of the truth." Why do you reject the need for this pillar and foundation?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999.

As the discussion on Revelation indicates, I do not believe the your church is the correct one. It isn't here on earth - yet. If yours was it the death should have no power over it, but it does we all die.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 08, 1999.

Now, take Luther's "personal" theory on immortal souls. This is not such, but clearly the opposite stated in the Bible - as he said.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 08, 1999.

Jean,

Many men have the same problem, as do I. I only pray to share the love I have been shown. With my family background it's even harder, that's why I thank The God for the loving wife He gave me - to make me share if need be :>).

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), June 08, 1999.

While reading most answers on this thread i believe that i am a heretic to the RCC and proud of it! But, seriously a thought came to mind concerning the "CHURCH" maybe some of you with more language skills can answer=

Is there a difference in the meaning of the words "CHURCH" and "SYNAGOGUE" which both occur in the writtings of the N.T.?

And, does the word "church" mean, a people(assembly/gathering),or a place to worship, or a place to worship without physical sacrifice, or other?

-- Michael(non-catholic)(heretic) (mdroe@erinet.com), June 09, 1999.

Michael:

A commentary on the Bible i have says that sinagoge is the greek translation of qahal (hebrew for people of God). The synagogue as a building for reading the word of God and singing and praying appears only after the exile with no exact date known.

on the other hand ekklesia is greek for assembly. Paul calls ekklesia the samll individual communities: Rom16,l; I Cor 1,18; 2 Cor 1,1. but sometimes he uses the term in a more universal sense: Gal 1,3; 1 Cor 15,9; Eph 1,22; Col 1,l8.

so in the NT ekklesia means not a place for worship, but an assembly, a community.

-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 10, 1999.