Posted on 10/16/2015 2:22:11 PM PDT by markomalley
Some RCs even throw all popes after Pius V in the "trash," and or hold encyclicals as being infallible, and all papal teaching to the church as binding (rel. assent), while others reject even encyclicals as not necessarily binding, based upon their judgment of what is.
That depends on what you consider to be official church teaching, at least today.
No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics. – Council of Laodicea, can 29; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm
If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - not found yet: III Council of Constantinople [attribution unverified].
“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
"One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated". (Council of Carthage [not found]
Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.
ISTANBUL – Pope Francis stood Saturday for two minutes of silent prayer facing east in one of Turkey's most important mosques...His head bowed, eyes closed and hands clasped in front of him, Francis prayed alongside the Grand Mufti of Istanbul, Rahmi Yaran, in the 17th-century Sultan Ahmet mosque. -http://www.freep.com/story/news/world/2014/11/29/turkey-pope/19661965/
Other things RCs are unlikely to be aware of, or obey:
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions
Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....
But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.
Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization...
That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902)
Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord,
... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
* “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)
“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
"Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected" St. Augustine
What recourse do good faithful Catholics have to combat the evil of this hierarchy?
Wouldn't that leave practicing [Roman] Catholics still needing permission from a local Ordinary to be communicating with those persons (and other critics of some particular aspects of Roman Catholicism, too) if allowed to 'speak for the RC church', at all?
We do see on these pages, that sort of thing, on a daily basis.
If I had a dollar for every time some [Roman] Catholic or another had said 'Catholics believe' whatever followed, and 'Catholics do not believe' something yet else, then one freepathon could be retired a bit earlier.
I mean, what you brought out was all about whether or not a person should be considered a 'heretic' or not.
According to what you've attributed to Augustine, (but failed to tell us from where among writings attributed to him) it did not include any distinction for permission to speak with them, particularly those whom defend their opinions with some amount of zeal.
How many FRomans have the sort of permission slip as it were, otherwise required, if in fact such a thing can wipe out all the previous directives forbidding those not officially clergy (or else possibly otherwise recognized) from communicating with others in regards to the [Roman] Catholic 'faith'?
I guess this is just another one of those inconsistencies...
It's a glaring one, too.
As far as I can tell, the larger error was in forbidding communication to take place --- rather than parishioner sort of Roman Catholics nowadays trying their hand at 'evangelization' and what-not.
Please take note that the laws in regards to freedom of expression & speech (which many here in the United States often take too much for granted, perhaps) are not 'Catholic' laws, but instead are from the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution is not subject to canon law of the RCC.
Which laws would you prefer to operate under? Choose this day, under which set of laws you would prefer to serve. (and stick with it, none of this going back-and-forth between differing sets of law).
Since what you brought out did not nullify what daniel1212 just covered, from official RCC sources no less, then those canon laws would still apply to [Roman] Catholics. (or else they are in defiance of their own Church's alleged to be infallible directives, most any time they open their yaps in regards to matters pertaining to Christian practice & faith)
Where then are the required permission slips for the usual suspects?
Does anyone have them? Or is this yet again one of those tenets of Roman Catholicism which is not adhered to -- yet still on the books, and according to other aspects of RCC theology would be included as infallible teaching of the [RC] Church, for reason of being part of Ordinary Magesterium.
So let us see them the permission slips, and have email addresses of their priests too, so that we can inform the local Ordinaries just what their own people are up to.
Meanwhile, I'm not constrained by that sort of artificial muzzling of my own expression, for I was born a free man, and told directly by the Lord also --- that I am free. That was a direct quote, in that in the past He said to me, quote un-quote "you are free".
It is enough that we are all accountable- --to God--- for what we say, even idle words.
Bring to us here your foremost apologists, the veritable Goliaths of Roman Catholic apologetics.
Myself and a few others, have a small collection of smooth river-stone we'd like to show them, while those lacking the required permission to engage, should just keep mum, saying nothing...
I didn’t say that. I said it was ironic.
Indeed, and which distinction Aquinas is not spelling out, but is is making a a distinction btwn being a heretic or not. And which, and the meaning of "pertinacity" (canonists vs. moralists) and to whom it is applied, is matter that sees interpretative contentions.
Obviously RC posters here either do not see as binding the church teaching which Aquinas refers to, or subsequently, which forbids RCs to communicate with heretics who have forsaken the faith they once received, or they do not see those like myself, former weekly RCs, as guilty of the heresy which excludes such from religious engagement with, and presently damned.
They may believe that I am only a material heretic, one who believes something to be true church doctrine which in fact is not, thus one who ignorantly errs in his facts, but instead it is substantiated teaching that I reprove, and arguments for them by the grace of God, while also contending for beliefs and values officially held by Rome,
Nor is my contention is due to personal hurt or resentment toward that church, but it is due to the contrast with Scripture, and a burden for souls and the Truth and glory of God. Having become born again while being a weekly Mass-going RC, and remaining therein for 6 years and seeking from fellowship of the Spirit, I know of the contrast btwn dead religion, Cath or Prot, and and those of church of the living God. And the more i learn then the more i have appreciated certain aspects of Catholic development, why such arose, while also seeing its errors more clearly.
Thus i must be considered a e formal heretic, one who knows what the Church teaches and chooses to believe something else, that being what is substantiated by Scripture, including that being the supreme infallible standard for faith and morals. Of course, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Rm. 3:2) And instead they followed a itinerant Preacher and preachers whom the magisterium rejected, but whom they reproved as souls well familiar with their errors, thus being as formal heretics in the sight of the magisterial powers, and established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
On the other hand, seeing as my reproofs often go unanswered, it seems many RCs are heeding the admonition of Isaias Boner of Krakow, “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instill their poison in your mind
Doctrine in canon law cannot be changed. But other things in canon law can be changed.
Send us the giant(s).
Let's just get it over with, and not have to keep arguing with those sources of RC-centric & supporting apologetic, somewhat second-hand (and over and over again).
They be cowards.
They know we are here, and would clean their clocks, if they don't have home field [control] advantage, and virtually own the referees...
This is one of the only forums I know of which is not under ownership/control of one 'side' of the wider discussion (as for points of theology and historical/scriptural basis for that same which differs between official and semi-official Roman Catholicism, and significant portions of much of the rest of Christianity, even 'Orthodox' included for some portions...)
We have already seen a doctrinal change in canon law to allow non-Catholics to receive communion without conversion (1983 vs 1917).
That makes rational sense.
Then again the canon law being referred to has not been 'changed' as much as attitudes towards the portions which just had been here touched upon by daniel1212, have been rather relaxed(?), or so it seems...
Carry on, regardless? Do what you can, don't worry yourself too much about the rest?
God will have the last say in all things, on that we are likely to agree, and furthermore possibly agree that we all are reliant upon His grace, and mercy, albeit He should not be tempted in those aspects of His being, if one can knowingly avoid doing so.
He is the scariest One of them all.
When He's the one who is irritated, ooh baby, look out.
I've had Him (by the Spirit) chew me out a time or two, while letting me know a little of how He felt about a this, or that concerning myself, and other things also, Him briefly revealing to me His own emotions as it were. His are more powerful than anyone's.
Yet after all of that type of thing, within myself still remains propensity for sinning.
Oh what a wretched man that I am. There's nothing comforting to me, or funny about that part of things...
Both of the above are considered invalidated by subsequent canon law. Though the decree of Pope Alexander IV in “Sextus Decretalium was considered binding when the CE was written (1902) it was absent in the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 (Pio-Benedictine Codex) while Canon 229 §1 provides some sanction for defending Cath faith. However, canon law is both changeable and can be quite interpretive, such as applying it to liberals getting the wafer or church funerals.
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
But which is too broad and ambiguous. And since the penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new code of canon law that went into effect on January 1, 1983., then it also is considered abrogated . At least by some.
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
See debate here on Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium,” "We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication."
While the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo, Canon 64, states: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, The Quinisext Council of 692 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm) was not held by the western church as authoritative and binding, but it is regarded by the Orthodox as ecumenical/binding, yet as disciplinary canons they can be abrogated.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the diligence.
After noting what Can. 229 §1 says (thank you very much) and seeing that supplies positive endorsement of the activity, compared to previous prohibition
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
At least by some. That's quite the kicker, isn't it?
I'd still like to see the permission slips, although there are more than a few around here who value the Constitution of the United States well enough (in it's more original intents, anyway) that they should have lifetime, "free" hall-passes, and as far as I'm concerned, do.
For others, not so much.
I've often wondered ... does the confessor of a few (certainly not all whom we interact with on these pages, but a few) of the 'Catholics' around here, know what their people are up to, in what they say and how they choose to say it?
If the priests are fully supportive of some of the more extreme edges, then I'd much rather discuss the issues with them --- and hopefully put some matters at least, to rest, so that we may possibly be hearing less of the same in the future.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Maybe people could better focus upon those things which can be agreed upon too, instead of so much be continually about what is in dispute.
I appreciate your own efforts towards this end, your honesty and the work you put into documentation, as you go along.
It's too bad that many so frequently just shine you on.
And now Catholics will witness a doctrinal change in which "Catholics" who are unrepentant of their sins receive communion.
This is exactly what I have predicted from the beginning.
If I understand your tortured prose, you're saying Aquinas makes no distinction between formal and material heresy, correct?
That's not true.
Accordingly, in the first way the Church does not forbid the faithful to communicate with unbelievers, who have not in any way received the Christian faith, viz. with pagans and Jews, because she has not the right to exercise spiritual judgment over them, but only temporal judgment, in the case when, while dwelling among Christians they are guilty of some misdemeanor, and are condemned by the faithful to some temporal punishment. On the other hand, in this way, i.e. as a punishment, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.
"Forsaking the faith once received" is formal heresy. In fact, most discussions of heresy in the pre-Reformation Church relate to formal heresy.
Obviously RC posters here either do not see as binding the church teaching which Aquinas refers to, or subsequently, which forbids RCs to communicate with heretics who have forsaken the faith they once received, or they do not see those like myself, former weekly RCs, as guilty of the heresy which excludes such from religious engagement with, and presently damned.
Or they may be unaware of Aquinas' writing on the matter or they may be unaware that the person with whom they are conversing is a formal heretic. Or they may consider that "punishment" of the heretic (one of Aquinas' two reasons for proscribing communication) may result in further alienation rather than reconciliation, which I'm sure Aquinas would agree, is undesirable.
It's worth noting those two conditions of Aquinas:
I answer that, Communication with a particular person is forbidden to the faithful, in two ways: first, as a punishment of the person with whom they are forbidden to communicate; secondly, for the safety of those who are forbidden to communicate with others.
In the case of this forum, the second condition is largely not applicable. As Aquinas himself goes on to say:
With regard to the second way, it seems that one ought to distinguish according to the various conditions of persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith.
I think it's in this spirit that communication occurs.
While laws based upon doctrine which are applied in certain contexts can be changed, doctrine is also understood by how it is applied, and a change in the latter can in effect teach a change in doctrine. If you are saying there never have been contradictions in canon law then you need to look up the Benedictine monk Gratian.
What i said was that it was not spelled out, not that is could not be derived by interpretation.
"Forsaking the faith once received" is formal heresy.
And what it can mean and who has forsaken the faith they once received is interpretive. You have bishops judging liberal RC pols as members, and the pope cordially thanking a manifestly impenitent Teddy K for his prayers, and with the the closest thing we can see to a rebuke being that of a giving him an "apostolic blessing," while giving him a church funeral, which canon law forbids for notorious public sinners, thus Rome apparently did not judge such as being one who departed from the faith. Or does that mean he would have had to leave Rome and perhaps become a conservative evangelical? No doubt then real concern for his soul would be manifest.
Or they may be unaware of..or they may be unaware...Or they may consider ... it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith.
So that must be what allows you to converse with such as me, despite what some past teaching said, but the point here is that we see variant interpretations on this matter, while you make made the teaching of Dr. Aquinas determinative on this matter, and thus perhaps we should expect you to affirm something else he said on this subject:
"On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
And at one time obedience to the pope required exterminating all the heretics from the land, akin to Islam, and now they professes to worship the same god, while some RCs here consider Prots as myself to be lost, while their church makes them brethren with liberals. Its quite an amalgamation.
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.