Where's the heresy

[Era Might]

[quote]Are 70% of Catholics heretics?[/quote]

A lot of them probably are, but a lot of them are just badly catechized. Unfortunately, Priests will have a lot to answer for this generation.

[Guest Rick777]

I've often wondered what the end times will be like if we arent already in them.....how much worse can it get?

[Socrates]

Any Catholic who does not believe in the Real Presence is guilty of heresy (at least materially). If he knows the Church teaching on the Real Presence, yet does not believe in it, he is guilty of formal heresy. If he has never made any real effort to learn what the Church teaches on the Eucharist, he may be guilty of a sin of neglect. If he was taught falsely by bad religious instruction, those who taught him will bear much of the guilt.
Liberal priests and bishops will have much to answer for!

However, while I would agree that proper catechesis of Catholics is a more urgent issue, I do not think there is anything wrong with arguing against or about views of protestants and others on this issue. The Catholic teaching is in the Real Presence. There is nothing wrong with discussing or arguing the Catholic view verses the heretical views of other sects.

I think this poll tries to create a false dilemna ("we cannot argue about the teachings of other sects unless every self-professed "Catholic" believes in the Real Presence"), which is why I did not vote in it. The Catholic teaching is the truth. All contrary teachings are heretical, whoever professes them.

And actually, I think arguing the Catholic teaching on various doctrines verses those of various protestants, etc. can help clarify and teach the true Catholic position to any ignorant or mis-informed Catholics who might be reading.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Socrates

[philothea]

This is probably not especially charitable of me...

But I can't see how [i]any Catholic who has ever been to a mass[/i] can have failed to notice the general Church-wide belief in the real presence. Nevermind catechesis. I understood what was going on with the eucharist when I was a non-Christian, unbaptized 10 year old... by listening to the words of the mass! No one had explained anything to me, but it seemed pretty obvious from the words and actions.

So I don't buy the "badly catechized" excuse, unless some wayward teacher actually taught error. Sure that could happen... but 70%?

[morostheos]

[quote name='philothea' post='1012730' date='Jun 26 2006, 09:08 PM']
This is probably not especially charitable of me...

But I can't see how [i]any Catholic who has ever been to a mass[/i] can have failed to notice the general Church-wide belief in the real presence. Nevermind catechesis. I understood what was going on with the eucharist when I was a non-Christian, unbaptized 10 year old... by listening to the words of the mass! No one had explained anything to me, but it seemed pretty obvious from the words and actions.

So I don't buy the "badly catechized" excuse, unless some wayward teacher actually taught error. Sure that could happen... but 70%?
[/quote]


I think a lot of times being badly catechized is much worse than not being catechized at all, unfortunately.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1012693' date='Jun 26 2006, 08:59 PM']
I think this poll tries to create a false dilemna ("we cannot argue about the teachings of other sects unless every self-professed "Catholic" believes in the Real Presence"), which is why I did not vote in it. The Catholic teaching is the truth. All contrary teachings are heretical, whoever professes them.

And actually, I think arguing the Catholic teaching on various doctrines verses those of various protestants, etc. can help clarify and teach the true Catholic position to any ignorant or mis-informed Catholics who might be reading.
[/quote]
Is it really valuable to offer housecleaning advice to others when our own is in such disarray? If only 30 percent of people going by the name Catholic stand behind the true Catholic position, how convincing is that position to outsiders looking in?

Edited June 27, 2006 by Sojourner

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1012745' date='Jun 26 2006, 07:33 PM']
Is it really valuable to offer housecleaning advice to others when our own is in such disarray? If only 30 percent of people going by the name Catholic stand behind the true Catholic position, how convincing is that position to outsiders looking in?
[/quote]
I wholeheartedly agree that some major housecleaning is in order in the Catholic Church (and has in fact begun). I am in no way arguing against reforming catechesis and pushing for orthodoxy in Catholic teaching!

All I am saying is that I do not see this as being an either/or thing. We should not have a moratorium on all apologetics and evangelization of non-Catholics until everything is right inside the Church. (As a convert, I think you should appreciate the importance of evangelization). Many strong orthodox Catholics are both re-evangelizing the Church and evangelizing others; the two are not mutually exclusive, but go hand-in-hand. Many of the strongest Catholics lately have been converts from outside the Catholic Church.

[Sojourner]

I don't see it as a question of "either/or" ... rather, it's a question of priority.

It brings to mind the analogy Jesus uses in Matthew 7 (which I'll paraphrase): Take the plank out of your own eye before assisting your brother with the speck in his.

I'll add that the single most effective tool for evangelization both inside and outside the church is a Catholic who knows his or her faith and believes it wholeheartedly and practices it faithfully. You can argue ideas all day long. Put em into practice and people start listening.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1012758' date='Jun 26 2006, 08:56 PM']
I wholeheartedly agree that some major housecleaning is in order in the Catholic Church (and has in fact begun). I am in no way arguing against reforming catechesis and pushing for orthodoxy in Catholic teaching!

All I am saying is that I do not see this as being an either/or thing. We should not have a moratorium on all apologetics and evangelization of non-Catholics until everything is right inside the Church. (As a convert, I think you should appreciate the importance of evangelization). Many strong orthodox Catholics are both re-evangelizing the Church and evangelizing others; the two are not mutually exclusive, but go hand-in-hand. Many of the strongest Catholics lately have been converts from outside the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Never said it was an either or thing. The topic isn't set up to be. And where praytell are you getting that its about not evangalizing? That's about the silliest thing I've read.


My point is if people want to point and say "heretic!" look no further than the guy sitting in the pew next to you. And I somewhat disagree with the statement that "priests have a lot to answer for"

We all have a lot to answer for. There's a little thing called the royal priesthood that we all participate in. We share in the glory and we share in the responsibility.

I could do a search and find dozens of threads talking about protestants, muslims and rad trads and how they need to change. I will find far less about catechizing Catholics. And if we properly catechize the guy sitting next to us in the pew, the only logical conclusion is we get more folks evangelizing.

[misereremi]

So many people I know have left Christianity and converted to Islam, or Spiritualist church, or just became atheists because they were poorly catechized for whatever reason, they never really believed or practiced. I never thought of them as heretics before. I see how both missions of catechizing within the Church and converting outsiders, help each other. They are both so important and need to happen now!

I do feel I have a responsibility in this mission, even though my knowledge and my capacity to do anything is limited. Sometimes I bring people to mass, or to talk to a priest, when they want to truly learn more. The first hurdle I have is peoples' reactions to mass and to how others behave at mass. Has anyone dealt with this?

E.g. I take them to the Novus Ordo mass, and they are shocked at some peoples' irreverence, or the "happy clappiness" of some services. I take them to Latin mass, and they are put off that the Church only seems to "cater" for posh White people. Then again, most of them do want to come back... I know it's not about them and their experience, or trivialities like the ethnicity of the people at mass and whether they "fit in." But I do think they have a point about irreverence, which I can only think stems from people not truly believing the Real Presence.

[Didacus]

Now I have not read the whole thread, but for what its worth:

I voted 'no'; I believe those who do not believe in the Real Presence are not heretical in nature but are misguided as I have been myself once.

And then I voted 'more important'; because it the CENTER of our faith and the grotesque misguidance should be corrected. Few things I can imagine would be more important.

The real question would be 'Should someone receive communion if they do not believe in the real presence?'.

[Sojourner]

In answer to Didace's question: No.

[homeschoolmom]

No.

[Era Might]

[quote name='philothea' post='1012730' date='Jun 26 2006, 09:08 PM']But I can't see how [i]any Catholic who has ever been to a mass[/i] can have failed to notice the general Church-wide belief in the real presence. Nevermind catechesis. I understood what was going on with the eucharist when I was a non-Christian, unbaptized 10 year old... by listening to the words of the mass! No one had explained anything to me, but it seemed pretty obvious from the words and actions.[/quote]
I went to Mass and CCD as a kid up until my first communion. I had no idea the Eucharist was the literal body of Christ. In fact, I once took the host outside of Church with me, because I didn't like how it tasted. I don't remember if I ever ate it; I may have left it where I put it. But, it wasn't an act of desecration. I just thought it was a piece of bread.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Well, I voted yes and more important. Although, like others have stated, I think that its largely ignorance and not deliberate rejection of Truth. Ignorance doesn't necessarily mean "not heretic", and I think thats the distinction Socrates made between formal and material heresy.