Ask A Catholic II

[kochman]

A load of heretics created a heresy in the Church that rejects dogma under something called the "spirit of vatican II" to fit their own liberal ideology.

The dogma of the Church has remained unchanged since the time of the apostles.

Which is it?

 

[timtofly]

The dogma of the Church has remained unchanged since the time of the apostles. It has deepened in understanding but nothing has ever been abrogated (because abrogating dogma is impossible) nor has anyting been added that is contrary to any previous dogma of the Church or contrary to the precepts of Christ. (thus unlike many, many protestant groups we don;t condone homosexuality, or contraception, or abortion)

The rest I have somewhat explained in an earlier post. Not to mention its part of an internal catholic debate which would be difficult to explain to an outsider. (culture wars between heretics who unlike the protestants of old havent left the Church, and faithful orthodox catholics)

Why? I am up for insider info.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Which is it?

You know me well enough by now to know I'm not Catholic and I don't have Catholic leanings, but this isn't really contradictory IMO. Its perfectly consistent to say the dogma itself doesn't change but some people within the church teach it incorrectly and deceptively. In fact, the Bible is quite clear that people will come into the church to preach falsehood. So that's actually not inconsistent.

 

[Jehoshua]

I wasn't asking if you acknowledged any specific change in a specific person. I was asking if you acknowledged, in general, that God could change a life if the person was not Catholic.

So, what is the fate of people that leave because of this? Are they then rejecting God since they left Catholicism, or are they following God since they are leaving a Church which perverts God's message, or both, or neither?

Firstly Its not the Church itself that is perverting Gods message. But heretics within the Church who are teaching htings contrary to what it actually teaches. As to their fate if they are aware of what the Church actually teaches and willfully leave their souls are likely in grave peril. If they were never taught what it actually teaches their souls are still in peril because they don;t have the Church to guide them, but they may still come under invincible ignorance if they live a truly moral life in total ignorance of what the Church actually is.

Well, there can be one absolute truth without us knowing what all of it is. IIRC, even in Catholicism the Church acknowledges that they don't know the absolute truth on all matters, since not everything is a dogma.

The thing is, though, that while there IS an absolute truth, some things are to be left to the individual, as Paul clearly explains about Christian liberty. Of course, that gives no excuse to knowingly sin. But certain things are left to the conscience. And certain things in the Bible aren't necessarily clear, because God doesn't want us to just have knowledge, he wants us to seek Him and seek more knowledge of Him.

So, yes, there can only be one truth. Amongst Protestants there are numerous teachings, some better defended by Scripture than others, but eventually, if the teachings contradict each other, only one or none of them will be right. But not everything is made clear on this Earth, because not everything is all that important.

Note that I'm not trying to prove Catholic teaching wrong here, I'm just saying sometimes there's more than one valid way to interpret a given Scripture.

In regards to non-dogma there is a legitimate diversity of opinions. Im not talking about this. I am talking about Dogma which is non-negotiable and which is either true or not. Considering God founded a Church either it must be right or your denying Christs promises to the Church he founded that he would preserve it from error.

I am sort of confused by the way you wrote this since it sort of agrees with me and then twists it to somehow say that even though they are contradictory to eachover those groups are still equally valid. This is impossible if you trust Christs promise to be with his Church since his Church as promised would be preserved from all error, and those other groups are thus inferior and only true insofar as the original Church (The Catholic Church) agrees with them.

And all dogma is important as if you take away one part the entire whole is undermined. They are not separate bits of teaching but an integrated in coherent whole.

 

[civ_king]

I wasn't asking if you acknowledged any specific change in a specific person. I was asking if you acknowledged, in general, that God could change a life if the person was not Catholic.



So, what is the fate of people that leave because of this? Are they then rejecting God since they left Catholicism, or are they following God since they are leaving a Church which perverts God's message, or both, or neither?

-



Well, there can be one absolute truth without us knowing what all of it is. IIRC, even in Catholicism the Church acknowledges that they don't know the absolute truth on all matters, since not everything is a dogma.

The thing is, though, that while there IS an absolute truth, some things are to be left to the individual, as Paul clearly explains about Christian liberty. Of course, that gives no excuse to knowingly sin. But certain things are left to the conscience. And certain things in the Bible aren't necessarily clear, because God doesn't want us to just have knowledge, he wants us to seek Him and seek more knowledge of Him.

So, yes, there can only be one truth. Amongst Protestants there are numerous teachings, some better defended by Scripture than others, but eventually, if the teachings contradict each other, only one or none of them will be right. But not everything is made clear on this Earth, because not everything is all that important.

Note that I'm not trying to prove Catholic teaching wrong here, I'm just saying sometimes there's more than one valid way to interpret a given Scripture.

It is hypothetically possible

they aren't "leaving a Church which perverts God's message," they were mis-taught by heretics, which would probably give them cover under invincible ignorance. If a Catholic does not agree with a teaching of the Church they are obligated to make sure they understand it and why it is thus (while doing this they must comply) and if they still disagree they still must follow it

 

[kochman]

And if they don't follow it? They know it is against RCC teaching, and they disagree with their heart, and don't follow it? What is their fate?

 

[Jehoshua]

Which is it?

Thats a stupid statement.

I am simply saying that certain people within the Church are rejecting what it teaches and are decieving the faithful while dishonestly remaining in the Church and trying to corrupt it to suit their own perversions. The Church itselfs actual teachings, as in its dogm have remained unchanged, the people decieving people and their doctrines have no official or legitimate authority in the Church.

A single priest for example is not the Church and any deviant teaching he says don't become Church dogma automatically. What it is, is a disobedient heretic decieving the faithful and not actually teaching them what the Church clearly and unambiguosly has proclaimed since the time of the apostles.

 

[civ_king]

And if they don't follow it? They know it is against RCC teaching, and they disagree with their heart, and don't follow it? What is their fate?

The wages of heresy is eternal death

 

[GhostWriter16]

they aren't "leaving a Church which perverts God's message," they were mis-taught by heretics, which would probably give them cover under invincible ignorance. If a Catholic does not agree with a teaching of the Church they are obligated to make sure they understand it and why it is thus (while doing this they must comply) and if they still disagree they still must follow it

I was talking about a specific church which is being taught by heretics, not the Catholic Church in general.

As for your last line, is church teaching always in line with what God wants?

If it is possible for the Church to be wrong, why must Catholics follow them even if they are wrong?

If it is impossible for the Church to be wrong, why would anyone disagree?

The wages of heresy is eternal death

The line is "The Wages of Sin Is Death." Nowhere does the Bible teach that heresy is inherently a damnable offense. Why pretend to quote the Bible when you are obviously quoting something else?

 

[Jehoshua]

Why? I am up for insider info.

I would rather not write a couple of pages describing culture wars at midnight my time.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would rather not write a couple of pages describing culture wars at midnight my time.

Midnight? Where do you live?

But you could always post them at another time...

 

[kochman]

Thats a stupid statement.

I am simply saying that certain people within the Church are rejecting what it teaches and are decieving the faithful while dishonestly remaining in the Church and trying to corrupt it to suit their own perversions. The Church itselfs actual teachings, as in its dogm have remained unchanged, the people decieving people and their doctrines have no official or legitimate authority in the Church.

A single priest for example is not the Church and any deviant teaching he says don't become Church dogma automatically. What it is, is a disobedient heretic decieving the faithful and not actually teaching them what the Church clearly and unambiguosly has proclaimed since the time of the apostles.

1) It was a question, not a statement.
2) Your words, to me, are contradictory... so, stupid question arose from poor wording.

The wages of heresy is eternal death

So, if you use a condom with your wife, though you know it is "wrong"... you are going to have eternal death, even if you follow every other rule?

 

[Jehoshua]

I was talking about a specific church which is being taught by heretics, not the Catholic Church in general.

As for your last line, is church teaching always in line with what God wants?

If it is possible for the Church to be wrong, why must Catholics follow them even if they are wrong?

If it is impossible for the Church to be wrong, why would anyone disagree?

The Church is preserved from doctrinal error by God as promised by Christ. Thus it is impossible for the Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ to be wrong in doctrinal matters. Thus Catholics are obliged to faithfully follow and study the truth in order to live it to its fullest under the knowledge that the Lord preserves it from doctrinal error.

People disagree with the Church because people are fallen and have opinions. And since living the truth isn;t easy they disagree because they don;t want to make sacrifices and reject their own lifestyles. Not to mention people naturally disagree, people disagreed with Christ and he was God the son incarnate, since that was the case than clearly they will disagree with the Church he founded as well.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So, if you use a condom with your wife, though you know it is "wrong"... you are going to have eternal death, even if you follow every other rule?

And if that is a mortal sin, why even have mortal and venial sin at all?

It seems to me that Catholics with their system of mortal and venial sin; it definitely "Feels" like the list was made by man. I don't know if Catholics believe Christ inspired the list or not, so maybe you could clear that up, but I mean, it definitely feels man made. The sins that most people think "Seem" more bad are mortal, and bring eternal death if never repented, and yet the sins that most people try to justify away are "Venial." I simply cannot wrap my head around this concept.

In actuality, no sin is "Venial" because ANY sin is serious, and the Bible is clear on it. And other than blasphemy of the Spirit, any sin can be forgiven by God.

The Church is preserved from doctrinal error by God as promised by Christ. Thus it is impossible for the Catholic Church, the church founded by Christ to be wrong in doctrinal matters. Thus Catholics are obliged to faithfully follow and study the truth in order to live it to its fullest under the knowledge that the Lord preserves it from doctrinal error.

People disagree with the Church because people are fallen and have opinions. And since living the truth isn;t easy they disagree because they don;t want to make sacrifices and reject their own lifestyles. Not to mention people naturally disagree, people disagreed with Christ and he was God the son incarnate, since that was the case than clearly they will disagree with the Church he founded as well.

What about policy matters? Can the Church be wrong in them? And if not, why have they changed? For instance, at one time, the Church allowed priests to marry, and now they don't. Was the Church formerly "Wrong" or not necessarily?

 

[Jehoshua]

1) It was a question, not a statement.
2) Your words, to me, are contradictory... so, stupid question arose from poor wording.

statements and questions are not mutually exclusive. And I hardly see how my statements were in any way contradictory to eachover. How is "decievers within distorting and teaching things contrary to what the Church dogma" and "The Dogma is unchanged since the apostles) contradictory. Domination seemed to get it. Perhaps you could enlighten me, and remove several growing assumption from my mind regarding your conduct and presence here.

So, if you use a condom with your wife, though you know it is "wrong"... you are going to have eternal death, even if you follow every other rule?

Condom use isn;t heresy. Heresy is going around and teaching false doctrines and holding false doctrines. You could perfectly well accept that contraception is wrong and use it and that would be a sin, but it wouldn't be heresy. Likewise you are also forgetting the possibility of repentance. Even a heretic can repent of his heresy and return to the truth.

however Civ_King is correct that persisting in unrepentant heresy in full knowledge of the Catholic Faith in willful rejection of its teachings leads to the wage of eternal death. However in an individual case no mortal can judge as we cannot know if a person repented in perfect contrition at the moment of his death.

 

[Jehoshua]

And if that is a mortal sin, why even have mortal and venial sin at all?

It seems to me that Catholics with their system of mortal and venial sin; it definitely "Feels" like the list was made by man. I don't know if Catholics believe Christ inspired the list or not, so maybe you could clear that up, but I mean, it definitely feels man made. The sins that most people think "Seem" more bad are mortal, and bring eternal death if never repented, and yet the sins that most people try to justify away are "Venial." I simply cannot wrap my head around this concept.

In actuality, no sin is "Venial" because ANY sin is serious, and the Bible is clear on it. And other than blasphemy of the Spirit, any sin can be forgiven by God.

There is actually no list of what is venial and what is mortal. It is simply considered that grave violations of the natural law and the faith made in full knowledge of their gravity are mortal because they separate the soul from God and constitute willful rejection of God.

Venial sin is basically sin that isn;t so serious to kill your soul, say that you steal a cent to feed your starving family, Your hardly going to go to hell for that. It still taints your soul but your not so tainted as to be incapable of achieveing the beatific vision. They are still serious though because they turn the soul away from God and increase the inclination to grave sin.

What about policy matters? Can the Church be wrong in them? And if not, why have they changed? For instance, at one time, the Church allowed priests to marry, and now they don't. Was the Church formerly "Wrong" or not necessarily?

Policy matters can be changed and it naturally can be less than perfect in those policy matters. In regards to married men being ordained priests (actually ordained priests are forbidden to marry and that is unchangeable) the Church could permit it in the latin rite (its always been permitted in the eastern catholic Churches) tomorrow and that would be perfectly fine, it would not violate dogma. I could even advocate that view and still be a catholic in good standing. Its not like disciplines are dogma and unchangeable

However calling one policy wrong, or right is simplistic as they are simply policies and each have their specific merits or lack of merits.

 

[kochman]

Condom use isn;t heresy. Heresy is going around and teaching false doctrines and holding false doctrines. You could perfectly well accept that contraception is wrong and use it and that would be a sin, but it wouldn't be heresy. Likewise you are also forgetting the possibility of repentance. Even a heretic can repent of his heresy and return to the truth.

however Civ_King is correct that persisting in unrepentant heresy in full knowledge of the Catholic Faith in willful rejection of its teachings leads to the wage of eternal death. However in an individual case no mortal can judge as we cannot know if a person repented in perfect contrition at the moment of his death.

OK, so, which is it, since RC is united in teaching.
Eternal death, or not, for using condoms with one's wife, though you know it is wrong?
Jehoshua seems to be saying no, because it isn't spreading false doctrine.
Civ King seems to be saying yes... because it is unrepented sin.

Which is it?

 

[Jehoshua]

Im not saying that at all.

unrepentant heresy isn;t the only thing that leads to damnation Kochman and I never said that it was, Mortal sin leads to damnation if unrepented, and heresy is just one amongst many grave matters which can be mortal sins.

Using contraception could potentially lead to damnation as it violates the natural law and the purpose of the sexual act and if conducted in full consciousness of the gravity of the violation and it is unrepented at time of death then it is possible that the person will be damned due to lack of repentance. (although as I said no man can judge that as they may have repented in perfect contrition in the moments before death.)

Kochman, I would suggest reading our answers before making claims which have no logical relation to our responses. If you make claims that are simply ignorant in an aggrssive manner I am forced to conclude that you are simply here to attack the Church, or alternatively that you are simply lacking in intellect.

 

[Jehoshua]

I will answer two more questions beyond backfilling before I need to get to sleep.

Midnight? Where do you live?

But you could always post them at another time...

Australia, I might post links to articles or sights that discuss the culture wars (amongst other things) tomorrow in addition to giving a brief commentary on the issue. But you got the basics of it already, heretics within the Church decieving people fighting faithful orthodox catholics on matters of dogma, (and abusing the liturgy and failing to actually teach the faith)

The line is "The Wages of Sin Is Death." Nowhere does the Bible teach that heresy is inherently a damnable offense. Why pretend to quote the Bible when you are obviously quoting something else?

I presume he was just adding eternal for extra clarity in quoting that, (not to mention its a generic statement which everyone knows). Same point comes acros though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Advice to Catholic: Sleep is far more important than answering questions this evening.