Author Topic: Insights Into Heresy (Read 11547 times)

Stubborn · « **on:** February 06, 2025, 01:57:41 PM »

From one of the links (No 1) in this post by OABrownson1876.

I believe the quote below from the link applies to dogmatic sedeism:

"...No one, I think, has explained this idea more clearly than Fr. Denis Fahey: "Heresy, as its Greek original proclaims, means selecting and choosing. It involves in its very essence a rupture of the harmonious equilibrium of two truths, both of which are taught in their purity by the Catholic Church. Heresy takes one aspect of the full harmonious synthesis of the Divine Plan and exaggerates it till the resultant affirmation involves the negation of the complementary aspect. It is the partial truth contained in a heresy which obtains acceptance for the error therein involved, because the human mind is meant for truth and cannot embrace error as such. What the Catholic Church condemns is, needless to say, the error or negation, not the affirmation.

In the above explanation there are four key ideas:
(1) Heresy involves two truths which, although distinct from one another, are related to one another in some way.
(2) The heretic does not necessarily take the "negative approach." He is usually affirming something which in itself is absolutely true, namely, one of the two truths.
(3) His affirmation becomes so forcible and overemphasized that gradually some aspects of this one truth become exaggerated
so that the other truth begins to be de-emphasized and then eventually altogether denied.
(4) It is the partial truth of what the heretic is saying that gains him a following, because the human mind (enfeebled though it is by Original Sin) still, for the most part, is capable of recognizing and rejecting unadulterated error..."

Michelle · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2025, 05:19:03 PM »

Quote from: Johannes on February 06, 2025, 02:17:17 PM

I guess you would have to define "dogmatic sedeism"

If you mean this - "Someone who holds it as a dogma of faith that must be believed that the Seat of Peter is vacant"

Then I would say,

Anyone who holds to such a theory as if it were a dogma of faith is elevating their opinion - as to WHAT has happened - to the level of dogma which is of course absurd. Exactly what happened (V2) and is now happening is anyone's guess (though some guesses are more educated than others). You would be completely within your rights to believe that we are all living in a form of slavery in an organic simulation like the Matrix, or some other far-fetched hypothetical - if you should like to use that as a theory of WHAT has/is happening now.

Contra

Anyone who holds that heretics are NOT members of the Church are holding to a dogma of faith concerning the most basic of doctrines - who are members of the Church and who are NOT members of the Church. Not only are those who hold this dogma 100% rational and faithful for doing so - but they are also obliged by Almighty God and His Church to separate from heretics.

AND

Further, anyone who holds that the Catholic Church, the spotless and immaculate bride of Lamb, who is without stain or wrinkle - can foist evil, polluted, false, Sacraments, teachings, disciplines, and laws on Her children is not only a heretic, but sadly is a extremely deluded raving lunatic as well. It would be more probable that the sun would explode and all the stars of the heaven to fall crashing to earth than to hold such a monstrous and disgusting

Very good assessment. Unfortunately many traditional leaders do not want to defend Our Lords Church anymore. Heresy has free reign because there is no loud voices defending the truth.
It should be more than obvious to all that the Catholic heirarchy has been taken over by the enemies of the faith to (try to) destroy the Church. This has been docuмented as a true conspiracy by the many enemies themselves, one being the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, exposed by many popes, as well as foretold by Our Blessed Mother in her many apparitions, and played out right in front of us for the past 60 years.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2025, 05:22:59 AM »

Quote from: Johannes on February 06, 2025, 02:17:17 PM

I guess you would have to define "dogmatic sedeism"

If you mean this - "Someone who holds it as a dogma of faith that must be believed that the Seat of Peter is vacant"

Then I would say,

Anyone who holds to such a theory as if it were a dogma of faith is elevating their opinion - as to WHAT has happened - to the level of dogma which is of course absurd.

Ok, so you're saying that you've changed your tune from what I considered a good example of dogmatic sedeism when you said: "...I will not admit that the Chair of Peter being currently vacant is just "my opinion", rather it is my belief..."

Quote from: Johannes on February 06, 2025, 02:17:17 PM

Contra

Anyone who holds that heretics are NOT members of the Church are holding to a dogma of faith concerning the most basic of doctrines - who are members of the Church and who are NOT members of the Church. Not only are those who hold this dogma 100% rational and faithful for doing so - but they are also obliged by Almighty God and His Church to separate from heretics.

Here again you are not making the necessary distinctions we previously discussed here:
"First, you need to make the distinction between heretics as is noted in the canon below. There are heretics who've never had the faith, [these are outside of the Church], and there are Catholics who've fallen into the sin of heresy [these are still members, under censure for the sin of heresy, and are not outside the Church] - as is the case with all of the conciliar popes....
Canon 751
"Generally the norms specified in the above canons are to be observed whenever it is a case of the baptism of the infant of two heretics or schismatics, or of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism."

Quote from: Johannes on February 06, 2025, 02:17:17 PM

Further, anyone who holds that the Catholic Church, the spotless and immaculate bride of Lamb, who is without stain or wrinkle - can foist evil, polluted, false, Sacraments, teachings, disciplines, and laws on Her children is not only a heretic, but sadly is a extremely deluded raving lunatic as well. It would be more probable that the sun would explode and all the stars of the heaven to fall crashing to earth than to hold such a monstrous and disgusting heresy.

We agree!

Now let's refer all of this to the 4 points in the OP...

1) The two truths are a) that the Church cannot teach error and b) heretics who have never been Catholic are outside of the Church. These two are absolutely truths and are altogether indisputable.

2) Is the affirmation that heretics are outside of the Church.

3) That heretics are outside of the Church is what is over emphasized due to wrongfully making it all-inclusive, while de-emphasizing the spotlessness of the Church by replacing the Church with the sins of conciliar popes as if popes are the Church.

4) The partial truth is that heretics are not members of the Church, partial truth because that idea wrongfully includes "Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism," who per Canon Law, remain members of the Church under censure.

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2025, 10:06:54 AM »

Quote from: Johannes on February 07, 2025, 09:09:56 AM

1st, the struck-out portion is your own twisted interpretation of what heretics are - any idiot baboon can see that

2nd, Pius XII made no such distinction in M.C. when he stated, "Not every sin is so serious as to SEVER ONE FROM THE BODY."
How can they be "severed from the Body" IF THEY WERE NEVER PART OF THE BODY TO BEGIN WITH?!?!?!?!?!?

The Canon is NOT "making distinctions" between Protestant and Catholic heretics (as if one group were still Catholic) you great storyteller - it is literally grouping them together in the same sentence! Because regardless of who the child's parents were, the same rule applies.

You are a blind pharisee who strains the gnat to swallow the camel. Digging into unrelated Canons about infant baptism to justify your egregious blunder and manifest denial of Catholic truth about Church membership.

You deny that those who lose the faith are outside the Church and therefore a heretic yourself.

Additionally, I do believe that your brain has been addled by the same worms that got RFK - and once you die, for the sake of humanity, you should seriously consider donating your brain to science, so we can determine how/what caused them to invade your gelatinous mass of tissue that you use as a brain and also to help explain how it was even medically possible for you to perform the most basic functions such as blinking, breathing, bowel movements, drooling, etc.

Ok, let me help you with your reading comprehension. Note Canon Law speaks of two distinct groups of people.
Group #1) speaks of those who've never been Catholic who are heretics/schismatics
Group #2) speaks of Catholics who've fallen into the sins of apostasy/heresy/schism
Canon 751
"Generally the norms specified in the above canons are to be observed whenever it is a case of the baptism of the infant of
1) two heretics or schismatics, or
2) of two Catholics who have fallen into apostasy, heresy, or schism."

Hopefully you see your mistake.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2025, 12:34:17 PM »

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Insights Into Heresy (Read 11547 times)

Stubborn

Insights Into Heresy

Michelle

Re: Insights Into Heresy

Stubborn

Re: Insights Into Heresy

Stubborn

Re: Insights Into Heresy

Stubborn

Re: Insights Into Heresy