"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
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...
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