Author Topic: St. Alphonsus on denouncing heretics in ones family (Read 1679 times)

Cathedra · « **on:** August 22, 2013, 12:53:23 PM »

This is from sedevacantist.net:

St Alphonsus Liguori treats the duty of denouncing heretics even among the members of one's own family. He declares that this duty obliges without exception, but only when the miscreant is truly and formally a heretic and not only suspected or erring in good faith. This distinction, presented in a clear and detailed manner, would be perfectly otiose if individuals were unable to recognise heretics before the authorities had intervened. So St Alphonsus clearly presumes that individuals can at times distinguish suspicion of heresy from certainty and can recognise the presence or absence of pertinacity. (Theologia Moralis, lib. 5, n. 250)

Does anyone have this specific passage to see what St. Alphonsus actually said?

I only found it in Italian.

ggreg · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2013, 01:01:56 PM »

Does he give tips on how to reverse engineer your brother's Facebook or LinkedIn action and denounce his "heresy" to his entire social network?

shin · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2013, 06:38:10 PM »

Finding St. Alphonsus Maria's Moral Theology in English (if it exists in such a form) would certainly be a very rare find.

Perhaps someone might translate? But I can't, sorry.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2013, 03:39:30 AM »

I have it in Latin and if someone can translate that would be awesome. My Latin is not good enough to do that yet, and I promise I will improve on that!

It is near impossible to do theology without knowledge of Latin.

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2013, 07:16:00 AM »

:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2013, 07:51:01 AM »

Quote from: Frances

:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

Very true. And frankly, even if you were to tell them that the conciliar doctrines are false, they may simply ignore you, appealing to the 'Catholic' authority of what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church. Dangerous times.

Cathedra · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2013, 09:04:56 AM »

Quote from: Frances

:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

That's not true. If you explain to them what Catholic teaching is and they reject it, formal heresy is complete.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2013, 09:16:42 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: Frances
:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

That's not true. If you explain to them what Catholic teaching is and they reject it, formal heresy is complete.

That is not necessarily true. A person can initially believe the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church. I believe that at a certain point, and after enough information has been given this person, formal heresy may be applicable, but the problem is precisely that you or I have absolutely zero authority in these matters, so even if we give someone every reason in the book, perfectly explained, they may opt for what they consider 'the safer route' which is submission to the Conciliar authorities they believe to be Catholic.

This is what makes the crisis so tricky. Because of an error in fact (believing the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church) people are drawn to errors in faith. But the error in faith is not necessarily pertinacious, which it must be in order to be formally heretical.

Frances · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2013, 10:02:24 AM »

:confused1:
You are both wrong! My family are not novus ordo Catholics; they aren't Catholics at all since most were never baptised. The last valid Baptism took place around 1971. That "baby" is now 42 or 43. She was not raised in the faith because her parents divorced and remarried, her mother, twice. Both are now deceased. "Valerie" is on her second "husband." She has three children, all over 18, none have any religion at all except that of the world. Non-Catholics cannot be heretics, just pagans.
:sad:

Cathedra · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2013, 01:39:01 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Cathedra
Quote from: Frances
:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

That's not true. If you explain to them what Catholic teaching is and they reject it, formal heresy is complete.

That is not necessarily true. A person can initially believe the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church. I believe that at a certain point, and after enough information has been given this person, formal heresy may be applicable, but the problem is precisely that you or I have absolutely zero authority in these matters, so even if we give someone every reason in the book, perfectly explained, they may opt for what they consider 'the safer route' which is submission to the Conciliar authorities they believe to be Catholic.

But when you show them that it is Church teaching that manifest and public heretics are outside the Church, have no authority and nobody can be subject to them, if they reject that, i don't see how they can be excused.

When you show them that even men posing as Popes, Bishops etc., can in fact not be real Popes, Bishops etc. because of public defection from the Faith, if they still choose to follow them because they like what they say and it is more convenient to them, they are inexcusable.

Anyone who comes up with a new Gospel is anathema, be it an Apostle or an Angel. This is in the Bible.

When the blind guide the blind, they both fall in the ditch, not just the guide.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

This is what makes the crisis so tricky. Because of an error in fact (believing the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church) people are drawn to errors in faith. But the error in faith is not necessarily pertinacious, which it must be in order to be formally heretical.

Which is why i always say that you cannot logically defend the Faith if you hold to r&r because the liberal ones and the ones who don't really care will always use that against you, and they would be right.

Cathedra · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2013, 01:40:47 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:confused1:
You are both wrong! My family are not novus ordo Catholics; they aren't Catholics at all since most were never baptised. The last valid Baptism took place around 1971. That "baby" is now 42 or 43. She was not raised in the faith because her parents divorced and remarried, her mother, twice. Both are now deceased. "Valerie" is on her second "husband." She has three children, all over 18, none have any religion at all except that of the world. Non-Catholics cannot be heretics, just pagans.
:sad:

Well yes, if you aren't even baptized you cannot be a heretic.

What i said is about all those who have been baptized and belong to the Novus Ordo.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2013, 02:11:31 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Cathedra
Quote from: Frances
:confused1:
With the sorry state of catechisis following Vat. II, not one of my errant relatives can be denounced as a formal heretic. No one can deliberately forsake a doctrine he never knew.

That's not true. If you explain to them what Catholic teaching is and they reject it, formal heresy is complete.

That is not necessarily true. A person can initially believe the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church. I believe that at a certain point, and after enough information has been given this person, formal heresy may be applicable, but the problem is precisely that you or I have absolutely zero authority in these matters, so even if we give someone every reason in the book, perfectly explained, they may opt for what they consider 'the safer route' which is submission to the Conciliar authorities they believe to be Catholic.

But when you show them that it is Church teaching that manifest and public heretics are outside the Church, have no authority and nobody can be subject to them, if they reject that, i don't see how they can be excused.

When you show them that even men posing as Popes, Bishops etc., can in fact not be real Popes, Bishops etc. because of public defection from the Faith, if they still choose to follow them because they like what they say and it is more convenient to them, they are inexcusable.

Anyone who comes up with a new Gospel is anathema, be it an Apostle or an Angel. This is in the Bible.

When the blind guide the blind, they both fall in the ditch, not just the guide.

Quote from: Mithrandylan
This is what makes the crisis so tricky. Because of an error in fact (believing the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church) people are drawn to errors in faith. But the error in faith is not necessarily pertinacious, which it must be in order to be formally heretical.

Which is why i always say that you cannot logically defend the Faith if you hold to r&r because the liberal ones and the ones who don't really care will always use that against you, and they would be right.

They can be excused because Catholics rely on the Magesterium and the authority of the Church. In a certain sense, it is precisely a person's sensus Catholicus that puts them on guard against laymen telling them that the post VII 'Church' is not the Catholic Church. A wounded Catholic sense, but their Catholic sense nevertheless.

A re-iteration: some, who after being catechized (even by a layman) in the traditional faith and persist in the new faith, some may be formal heretics. I am rejecting your claim that any Novus Ordite 'presented with the facts' is necessarily a formal heretic.

I don't think it's as simple as saying that once you've given someone a link to the Dimond bros that they must cease and desist all Novus Ordo association immediately, or they are formal heretics.

Cathedra · « **Reply #12 on:** September 03, 2013, 07:21:34 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

They can be excused because Catholics rely on the Magesterium and the authority of the Church. In a certain sense, it is precisely a person's sensus Catholicus that puts them on guard against laymen telling them that the post VII 'Church' is not the Catholic Church. A wounded Catholic sense, but their Catholic sense nevertheless.

Well once you clearly show them how the pre and post v-2 Magisterium is completely in disagreement, i don't see how they could be excused.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

A re-iteration: some, who after being catechized (even by a layman) in the traditional faith and persist in the new faith, some may be formal heretics. I am rejecting your claim that any Novus Ordite 'presented with the facts' is necessarily a formal heretic.

So you believe that if you present the dogma, not mere fact, that there is no salvation outside the Church and you have to be Catholic to be saved, and this novus ordo person still believes heretics and schismatics are going to Heaven and that his/her good Protestant "buddies" are real Christians and will make it just fine, you believe such a person is still not a heretic?

This isn't any "claim" of mine": you either hold the Faith or you are a heretic.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I don't think it's as simple as saying that once you've given someone a link to the Dimond bros that they must cease and desist all Novus Ordo association immediately, or they are formal heretics.

I have always been saying once you explain them everything clearly, and they still persist in their obstinacy.

I'll give you a real-life example.

I have a "devout" novus ordo aunt that believes in salvation outside the Church and all she thinks of is God's mercy. She believes all kinds of people can be saved and is a total religious indifferentist. I don't blame her of course, she was just raised in the V-2 apostasy.

Well, when i found out about all this stuff, i went to her house and told her all about it. I told her how EENS is a dogma and that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. I also explained to her what a dogma is.

You think she was troubled by all this? Not in the slightest. All she could say was "God's mercy is huge and infinite!" while spreading her arms open like if she was going to hug a tree.

I told her how she is engaging in private interpretation and that she is preferring her own will and her own ideas over what the Church teaches, and she still remained obstinate.

All she did was ask me "well what about the poor people who never heard about the Church or the Gospel" and i answered what the Church says about that.

She also rejected the doctrine on original sin and how infants cannot be saved if they die without baptism.

I was thourough and patient and i showed her all the quotes and what all the Saints said about it etc. but she still preferred her own will.

She's not only a heretic, she's an apostate, because in the local "chapel" here they have what seem to be Protestant "cults" where they sing Protestant songs and all that stuff.

I have told her about modesty in clothes because she dressess immodestly, she wears pants and shorts and never long skirts and well you know how they are.

Nothing. So far she has not recognized anything, not one thing.

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** September 03, 2013, 07:46:16 PM »

Quote

So you believe that if you present the dogma, not mere fact, that there is no salvation outside the Church and you have to be Catholic to be saved, and this novus ordo person still believes heretics and schismatics are going to Heaven and that his/her good Protestant "buddies" are real Christians and will make it just fine, you believe such a person is still not a heretic?

So let me ask you, does a Catholic who dies holding a material heresy go to hell for that fact. If not, why not?

SJB · « **Reply #14 on:** September 03, 2013, 07:49:54 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

I told her how she is engaging in private interpretation and that she is preferring her own will and her own ideas over what the Church teaches, and she still remained obstinate.

The irony of it all. :wink: