my freind is going to a lutheran bapsism

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

who used harsh launguage. Charity can not stand in the way of Christ's Truth.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:03 PM'] Formal and Material are the distinctions of heresy...

However, I'd caution against the harsh language. Not entirely conducisive to Ecumenism. We can be more charitable than this... [/quote]
Nobody has used harsh language. It just seems that referring to protestants as heretics in any way isn't accepted on this forum despite how acceptable it is to bash other religions which are equally mistaken.

Edited June 2, 2005 by KizlarAgha

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jun 2 2005, 05:57 PM'] They are heretics, but it is a different type than most people think of. There is a distinction but I cannot think of the names.. Formal and something else. I am sure one of the others will be along shortly [/quote]
Formal and material heretics....Most protestants are material heretics.

As far as denoting them...it is totally appropriate to do so in a theological discussion. It is not uncharitable to make the distinction, if one is using the terminology in a manner of teaching. If one is using in a manner that is libel or slanderous.....then it is not acceptable.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Cam,

can you expalin the difference

thanks

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:03 PM'] Formal and Material are the distinctions of heresy...

However, I'd caution against the harsh language. Not entirely conducisive to Ecumenism. We can be more charitable than this... [/quote]
I would second that...They are heretics but calling that time and time again wont get you to far. It puts up a wall or barrier that is hard to overcome when you label someone something to which there is a negative stigma attached. Be it the truth, there are other ways of going about it.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:10 PM'] I would second that...They are heretics but calling that time and time again wont get you to far. It puts up a wall or barrier that is hard to overcome when you label someone something to which there is a negative stigma attached. Be it the truth, there are other ways of going about it. [/quote]

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:06 PM'] Nobody has used harsh language. It just seems that referring to protestants as heretics in any way isn't accepted on this forum despite how acceptable it is to bash other religious which are equally mistaken. [/quote]
I wouldn't say "equally" mistaken...

Nonetheless, you won't find a single post of mine bashing another religion.

I was just cautioning all. Throwing around "emotionally loaded" terms without proper context or justification (i.e., information not all that pertinent to this thread) is not entirely appropriate--even in a joking manner.... what of the lurking Protestants who read this site? We look just as bad tossing them aside as heretics as they do on my FBC forum insisting all us Catholics are hellbound Mary idolaters blinded by tradition and worship of the Pope. But I'm not a moderator. Thus, just my two cents. Take it or leave it.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

don't skip around the truth... they need to know what is wrong with them or they will surley parish.

[KizlarAgha]

Well, I dunno. I'm in favor of charity. But I will continue to be uncharitable to protestants to highlight the uncharitable behavior these fora tend to show to other groups.

[Paphnutius]

Not to steal Cam's thunder but it seems he is busy for the moment, but a formal heretic is one who knows the teachings and outright denies them. One that intentionally seperated himself or herself from the Church and its teachings. A material heretic is one who believes in a hereys without meaning to seperate oneself form the Church. That is my understanding. I could be mistaken.

I think the point they are getting at is that calling someone a heretic either will irritate them so they are unapproachable, or wont affect them. Why would they care if a Catholic called them a heretic?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:10 PM'] [/quote]

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:12 PM'] don't skip around the truth... they need to know what is wrong with them or they will surley parish. [/quote]
It's not skipping around the Truth. And no, they aren't going to perish that very second... there is a manner of tact and charity in sharing the Truth. Spitting it in someone's face by calling them a heretic isn't going to develop a good relationship for Truth-sharing...

How much would you listen to someone whose first word to you was to call you a heretic?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:17 PM'] Well, I dunno. I'm in favor of charity. But I will continue to be uncharitable to protestants to highlight the uncharitable behavior these fora tend to show to other groups. [/quote]
In other words, stoop to their level?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:18 PM'] It's not skipping around the Truth. And no, they aren't going to perish that very second... there is a manner of tact and charity in sharing the Truth. Spitting it in someone's face by calling them a heretic isn't going to develop a good relationship for Truth-sharing...

How much would you listen to someone whose first word to you was to call you a heretic? [/quote]
As long as you apply that rule consistently and not just to protestants...

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:19 PM'] In other words, stoop to their level? [/quote]
No. There's a difference between calling protestantism heresy amongst Catholics and amongst protestants. I'm merely trying to make people think. The best way to do that is to make them feel.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:20 PM'] No. There's a difference between calling protestantism heresy amongst Catholics and amongst protestants. I'm merely trying to make people think. The best way to do that is to make them feel. [/quote]
Feeling is not thinking.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:09 PM'] Cam,

can you expalin the difference

thanks [/quote]
I posted this a long time ago here:

[quote]So here is a thought.....the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us this about heresy:

CCC 2089: "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.

While we are to be wary of them, we are also to minister to them. If we have no tolerance for those who don't accept what we believe, then how are we to correct them? Beating them over the head with the Catechism and Bible, I think not.

We als have to be very careful in the use of the word heresy or heretic. The Church doesn't use it very often and when she does, she is very specific on the definiton and application.

Also, did you know that there are two types of heresy? The Church expressly distinguishes between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material" heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing.

So, which kind of heresy are you talking about? Formal heretics or material heretics? Once we have discerned that.....we can then talk about applying the teaching as defined in the CCC stated above.

As was said earlier, the examen, is a good one, but not binding in anyway....

What is the Greatest Commandment again? Mt 22:34-40. And where does it say that they have to believe what we do in order to follow?[/quote]

[quote]Protestantism is a Christian heresy that has flourished since the sixteenth
century after Christ. It says that man is saved by faith alone (sola fide),
and not by works, and that the sole authority for doctrine is the Bible
alone (sola scriptura), not any pope or council of bishops or tradition,
however ancient or hallowed. It interpreted the Bible in such a way that the
Catholic priesthood was no longer necessary.

G.K. Chesterson says, "Protestants are Catholics gone wrong; that is what is
really meant by saying they are Christians . . . Thus a Calvinist is a
Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of God. But when
he makes it mean that God wishes particular people to be damned, we may say
with restraint that he has become a rather morbid Catholic. In point of fact
he is a diseased Catholic; and the disease left to itself would be death or
madness. But, as a matter of fact, the disease did not last long, and is
itself now practically dead. But every step he takes back towards humanity
is a step back towards Catholicism. Thus a Quaker is a Catholic obsessed
with the Catholic idea of gentle simplicity and truth . . ."

People who adhere to Protestants in and of themselves are not formal heretics.
But, Protestantism as a doctrine, is rightly called a heresy. Why? Because
it properly fulfills the requirement as the Catechism defines it.

CCC 2089: "...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..."

Notice that catholic is NOT capitalized. I will provide the link, lest you
think that it is a typo on my part.

[url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm"]http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm[/url]

So, is the Protestant doctrine a heresy? Yes.

While a person may adhere to a heretical principle like Protestantism, they
are not necessarily guilty, on an individual level, of being a formal heretic.

How can this be? Protestantism is a heresy, by definition. See above.
This does not change. This is a truth, so much so that the only correction
for Protestantism is the recociliation of different Protestant denominations
to themselves and then the "uber-Protestant" church to reconcile to Holy
Mother Church.

If a person has no knowledge that he is not in a heretical state and is not
taught that the defining truth is Catholicism, he is not a formal heretic, but rather, a material heretic. However, he is in adherance to a heretical prinicple.

In otherwords, a baptized Protestant churchman is not necessarily a formal heretic,
but he does, de facto, adhere to a heretical prinicple.

This all changes when said churchman is exposed to Catholicism on both an
intellectual and evangelical level and denies it. Why? Precisely because
he is baptized. He then is deemed heretical, by definition. At any time
before that he is in a state of either voluntary or involuntary doubt and/or
incredulilty. Look to CCC 2088-2089.

If those who are not Catholic are not in some form of error, why convert
them? Why the evangelization and catechesis?

"....there aren't too many protestants out there that aren't aware of the
fact that they do not believe in the priesthood or the pope or
transubstantiation."

Have they been properly evangelized and catechized? Have those same people
been engaged on an intellectual level that would constitute AUTHENTIC
conversion? Or are they simply going on preconceptions? There are
qualifiers.

So, by my definition most DON'T AUTHENTICALLY know that they are in
disagreement with the Church.

Again, if one who is not Catholic is authentically taught the Faith and they
don't assent to it, they are in a state of voluntary or involutary doubt.
Not heresy.

Prostestantism is still a heretical prinicple though. BTW, Protestantism
denys any number of tenents that God has revealed to be true. Are they in
error? If so, what is that error? Not the people mind you, the religion?

Does Protestantism exist? Yes. Does Protetantism contain those things that
are contrary to Catholic teaching? Yes. Are most Protestants baptized?
Yes. What is the defintion of heresy? ""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

This is not only speaking of a Roman Catholic but also any Christian who is
baptized and has an obstinate doubt about the faith.

Are you saying that a person baptized outside the Church is somehow less
baptized? If you look closely, you will see that the CCC speaks of
catholics not Catholics. Big difference. Does this in fact include those
outside the Roman Catholic Church? Yes, how can I say that? The Orthodox
Church is in a state of schism. That includes heresy. Protestantism is not
a schism, but it is a heresy. By definition.

Protestantism is more than an idea. It is a way of life. It is lived by
those who are currently apotstates and those who live in a state of either
involuntary or voluntary doubt, and in some cases yes, heresy. But the idea
of Protestantism is in fact a heretical priniciple.

You ask, "What is the penalty for heresy?"

I answer that, "There is no salvation outside the Church."

You say, "You cannot have an heresy without the heretics. Heresy is not
defined exclusively as an idea but as an idea actively promoted by.. a post
baptismal person.

You cannot separate the two. An idea cannot be heresy on its own. So if
they are not heretics because they have not been AUTHENTICALLY been
catechized. Then what they believe would not be construed as heresy."

I would respond to that in this way. The Church expressly distinguishes
between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the
Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material"
heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false
prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing.

So it would seem that Protestantism can in fact be a heresy and baptized
protestants can and are, by the Church's definition, at the very least
"material" heretics.

So, with that in mind, I would return to my first assertion, Protestantism
is the greatest heresy.[/quote]

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:21 PM'] Feeling is not thinking. [/quote]
No. But I find the one leads to the other.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:21 PM'] No. But I find the one leads to the other. [/quote]
Not always.

Toying with people's emotions is somewhat deceptive and manipulative. It doesn't strike me a good, solid strategy.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 2 2005, 06:23 PM'] Not always.

Toying with people's emotions is somewhat deceptive and manipulative. It doesn't strike me a good, solid strategy. [/quote]
Well you're entitled to your beliefs on that score.