Posted on 01/13/2015 3:49:07 PM PST by NYer
Freedom of speech is a great thing. Unfortunately, it comes at an unavoidable price: When citizens are free to say what they want, theyll sometimes use that freedom to say some pretty silly things. And thats the case with the 12 claims were about to cover.
|
Some of them are made over and over, others are rare. Either way, while the proponents of these errors are free to promote them, we as Catholics have a duty to respond.
7. "Dissent is actually a positive thing, since we should all keep our minds open to new ideas."
You might hear this argument a lot today. Everyone wants to find a solution to the problem,especially in the wake of the abuse scandal in the Church. Everyone wants to find a solution to the problem, and in doing so some people are advocating ideas that are outside the pale of our Catholic faith (i.e., women priests, being open to homosexuality, etc). A lot of people blame the Church for being too rigid in its beliefs and not wanting to try anything new.
The truth is, a lot of the ideas for reform that are floating around today aren't new. They've been around for a while, and the Church has already considered them. In fact, the Church has spent its entire life carefully examining ideas and determining which ones are in line with God's law and which aren't. It has discarded heresy after heresy while carefully building up the tenets of the Faith. It should come as no surprise that there are thousands of other Christian churches in existence today — all of them had "new ideas" at one point that the Church had decided were outside the deposit of faith.
The Church has an important responsibility in protecting the integrity of our Faith. It never rejects ideas out of hand, as some dissenters would claim, but has two thousand years of prayer and study behind the beliefs it holds to be true.
This doesn't mean that we can never disagree on anything. There's always room to discuss how best to deepen our understanding of the truth — for example, how we can improve our seminaries or clergy/lay interactions — all within the guidelines of our Faith.
What slaughter?
The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.
The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The leader of the crusaders, Simon de Montfort, resorted to primitive psychological warfare. He ordered his troops to gouge out the eyes of 100 prisoners, cut off their noses and lips, then send them back to the towers led by a prisoner with one remaining eye. This only served to harden the resolve of the Cathars.
From May 1243 to March 1244, the Cathar fortress of Montségur was besieged by the troops of the seneschal of Carcassonne and the archbishop of Narbonne. On 16 March 1244, a large and symbolically important massacre took place, where over 200 Cathar Perfects were burnt in an enormous fire at the prat dels cremats near the foot of the castle. Moreover, the Church decreed lesser chastisements against laymen suspected of sympathy with Cathars, at the 1235 Council of Narbonne.
Repentant lay believers were punished, but their lives were spared as long as they did not relapse. Having recanted, they were obliged to sew yellow crosses onto their outdoor clothing and to live apart from other Catholics, at least for a while. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar
As for other dissidents,
Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element.
Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues.
But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith;
The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
This indulgence has now been transferred to those who spam FR with RC propaganda, or posts to themselves.
“Why does the Catholic Church twist scripture like that? It does NOT say interpretation of scripture. It says interpretation of prophecy.”
Actually, it say “that no prophecy of Scripture”. No interpretation was involved in prophecy. God inspired it.
Why is it so frequently twisted by Roman Catholics as in the article here and trotted out on FR threads??
Clearly, many do not actually read the Scriptures, or value them, except as they appear to support their pre-beliefs.
Here is the KJV — tell me what is twisted.
2 Peter 1:20-21King James Version (KJV)
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain
A self-fulfilling prophecy, along with poor proofreading.
Wow....the article at the end just completely destroys any and all claims of the rcc to a lineage of popes dating back to Peter.
Article is authored by a genuine exCatholic, Dr Joe Mizzi.
"Here is the KJV — tell me what is twisted."
Perhaps it would help to see the context of this passage...
"16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an [a]utterance as this was [b]made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this [c]utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.Peter writes that "we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." This was on the Mount of Transfiguration. He and the others actually saw his glory and heard the voice of God the Father. They did not just make it up.
"19 [d]So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
These events on the Mount of Transfiguration fulfilled prophecy. Peter says the prophetic word was "made more sure", meaning they were there and heard the fulfillment of the prophecy - to which they should pay attention. Peter adds what is in Scripture (prophecy) did not originate in the minds of men but in the mind of God. We have it on paper because God inspired men to write it by His Holy Spirit.
The way it is twisted is by making it say that all private interpretation of the Scriptures is wrong. The passage does not say that. It say prophecy in the OT came from God and not as a result of man's interpretation.
As my former professor Tom Constable wrote, "The prophets did not simply give their interpretation of how things were or would be (v. 20). They spoke as God’s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in words that accurately represented those thoughts."
Interpretation is REQUIRED to read, study and understand the Scriptures. It is part of loving God with your whole mind. It is the source of salvation, wisdom and instruction in how to live. Interpretation is a correct understanding of what is written.
To close, it is worth noting that as chapter 2 begins, Peter goes on to contrast false prophets with the true prophecy that came from God.
Finally, I wish you well.
.
>> “Wow....the article at the end just completely destroys any and all claims of the rcc to a lineage of popes dating back to Peter.” <<
.
And rightly so!
Peter would spit in your eye if you called him a pope.
He witnessed Yeshua himself declare that there is no great man, and that we are all equal.
Those that want a pope simply do not know Yeshua.
.
.
>> “The prophets did not simply give their interpretation of how things were or would be (v. 20). They spoke as God’s mouthpieces articulating His thoughts in words that accurately represented those thoughts.” <<
.
IOW, prophecy is clear, and self interpreting.
Thanks for the review on the Heresies. This is a really good precise listing. Therefore, I am bookmarking it.
They twist the words of scripture and somehow think no one is going to notice.
I would say it's because they can use it as a weapon of control over those who are too lazy to study for themselves and put their faith in man rather than in Christ.
.
>> “They twist the words of scripture and somehow think no one is going to notice.” <<
.
Their ace in the hole is that few who claim the faith ever really read the scriptures for understanding.
.
That is a very fair question. Pelagius (the original author of the Pelagian view) held that man is entirely free from the influence of God when it comes to making the decision to obey Him or rebel. That is, man possesses sufficient "will" to choose to come to Christ or deny Him, without any input from God.
Semi-Pelagianism softened this view to say, God has done all He can to rescue all men and now the rest is up to the individual man. It is the picture of the man floundering in the lake, drowning as the water goes over his head. God has thrown the life preserver to the man (given grace) and all the man must do is stick his arm through the preserver and he will be saved. God does some, man does some. (Synergism)
Both of these views hold that the grace God has extended is "resistable". That is, if the man doesn't want to be saved, he doesn't have to be saved. Even God does not know what the man will do.
Now, Semi-Pelagianism has attempted to deal with the problem of God's foreknowledge as it impacts the view. That is, if God has foreknowledge, does He know what the man in the lake will choose? If so, does the man have any other choice than the one God knows? If not, then is the man's will really "free"? Notice the problems.
However, all of the Catholics I have encountered around here hold a Semi-Pelagian view and claim that it must be true, otherwise the only arrangement left is God determining the outcome. That strikes them as so "unfair" that they reject it out of hand.
But, in this OP we read that the RCC has condemned Semi-Pelagianism (right along with Pelagianism) as heresy. I am just asking for a some kind of reconciliation of the apparent dilemma.
Did that help?
Well you certainly answered your own question!
Now, Semi-Pelagianism has attempted to deal with the problem of God's foreknowledge as it impacts the view. That is, if God has foreknowledge, does He know what the man in the lake will choose? If so, does the man have any other choice than the one God knows? If not, then is the man's will really "free"? Notice the problems.For me, I have to draw the line at not going beyond man's perspective.
I cannot say what God knows. My opinion is that there are a variety of potential futures and the man's path to his ultimate future is determined with each and every decision.
To my understanding, God has given man free will and doesn't make man's decisions for him, thus, informed or not, man's fate is his own to decide.
Man can follow Jesus and live by His Commandments or rebel and follow along with Satan's influences choosing open rebellion or some lesser rationalistic path or even an atheist's path.
Or, perhaps at some point man discovers his error(s) and reaches for the life preserver and is pulled to safety. Or, once safe, goes back to his old ways.
Does God know the eventual outcome of man's journey? My guess is "yes and no", but I cannot say for certain, only guess. I just don't think it's relevant to man's perspective.
Man either has free will or he doesn't and is merely an automaton. I think one significant clue is that even Jesus doesn't know when God pulls the plug on our story.
What has surprised me the most regarding some past discussions here is that, by their own words, many do not believe in free will at all. It doesn't exist.
I confess that I can't get my head around that point of view and have argued with people here not realizing that their arguments were coming from a denial of free will.
I regret my getting into those arguments, but especially so without first having understood this was a basic tenant of their beliefs.
Yes, Rome was certainly the answer, came to steal, kill and destroy.
. . . and an infidel by Mohammedanism . . .
You are welcome...
Interestingly, your response will tend to put you in the category of a Semi-Pelagian.
"Man can follow Jesus and live by His Commandments or rebel and follow along with Satan's influences choosing open rebellion or some lesser rationalistic path or even an atheist's path."
That is, you understand man is free to choose, irrespective of God's influence, and he can resist, decline, accept or reject. That, by definition is Semi-Pelagianism. The Romanists are claiming this is heresy. But, they wish to cling to "free will", also.
I am sorry that those of us who see Divine Determinism as the perspective described in the Scriptures have made discussions about the matter unpleasant for you.
I've never been able to read a scripture verse that the Roman Catholic Church quotes and see the same thing.
2 Peter 1:20-21 is very clear. It states that the prophesies in the scriptures were written by the will of the Holy Spirit and not through the will or understanding of man.
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.