Does that mean I have to stop calling CM and fk formal heretics who will surely burn in hell?

Wow, this is such a tricky question.

explicit formal heresy:  I know that the Catholic Church teaches such-and-such but I don't believe it anyway.  This kind of heresy is formal precisely because it undermines the very formal motive of faith, the teaching authority of the Church.  I've never met a Traditional Catholic who falls into this category.  Why is it that we do not have various groups among Traditional Catholics arguing about whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead or whether Our Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived?

implicit formal heresy:  Now, it's certainly possible for a person to PROFESS adherence to the Church's teaching authority and yet be a heretic.  So for instance the Church condemns an opinion as heretical but you remain obstinate in claiming that it's not.  Ironically, CM and fk, the chief culprits in denouncing others as heretics, come the closest to this due to the fact that their position implicitly undermines the magisterium and subjects all truth to their own private judgment.

explicit material heresy:  Usually comes from raw ignorance.  I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because I think that the Church's teaching refers to the conception of Jesus.  Such a person immediately rejects this opinion when it's explained to them that they're in error.

implicit material heresy:  Theological conclusions or positions improperly deduced from Church teaching in such a way that they implicitly undermine dogma, i.e. if taken to their logical conclusions.

Then there are other errors which fall short of heresy.

I think that it's perfectly OK to argue that someone might be in material heresy.

So how does one know that someone appears to be accusing others of formal heresy?  Well, the "you're going to burn in hell" or "you're not Catholic" comments are usually what tips their hand.

Now, ironically, in declaring other people outside the Church for holding to implicit material heresy, one can become schismatic.  Home-Alonism probably implies schism.

Now, the arguments we've had with CM and fk revolve around the implicit vs. explicit heresy distinction.  CM and fk are adamant that the denial of their theological conclusions involves explicit rejection of Church teaching, while I argue that it cannot be more than implicit, since there's no explicit Church teaching, for instance, that "If anyone believes in Baptism of Desire, let him be anathema."

Of course, even CM and fk have stated that they believe people could be only materially heretical.

So, for instance, I argue that sedevacantism might be implicitly heretical, but I do not accuse sedevacantists of heresy.  If anything, the dogmatic sedevacantists are schismatic for their effective excommunication of all those who disagree with them.  In the case of priests, refusing sacraments to people who hold contray opinions would also tip their hand in terms of asserting that those people are heretics and not Catholic.

fk,

Matthew did not say one had to be explicitly declared a heretic by the Church (i.e. called out by name).  If you were to argue that someone who came on the forum claiming that Christ did not bodily rise from the dead but that the Apostles merely had a spiritual resurrection experience was a heretic, I don't think that you'd have anyone here disagreeing with you.  Where there's a problem is in your raising personal theological conclusions to the level of dogma and in declaring those who arrive at different conclusions to be heretics.

I think cm an fkpagnanelli are crazy. I agree that the calling of people heretics needs to stop. I just don't want this forum to become another angelqueen. Members on the forum know that I don't bring up sede debate issues as I have no need to discuss them. I prefer to discuss the economic and social realities affecting us.

Andy

fk,

Matthew did not say one had to be explicitly declared a heretic by the Church (i.e. called out by name).  If you were to argue that someone who came on the forum claiming that Christ did not bodily rise from the dead but that the Apostles merely had a spiritual resurrection experience was a heretic, I don't think that you'd have anyone here disagreeing with you.  Where there's a problem is in your raising personal theological conclusions to the level of dogma and in declaring those who arrive at different conclusions to be heretics.

Exactly.

Of course a forum like CathInfo has to ban blasphemers and actual heretics (like Uriel). They would destroy a Catholic forum, so as peaceful as I might want to be, I have no choice.

But anything not black-and-white, you need to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to please God and be in His Church.

Catholic does not equal Saint. I think that's what's confusing Raoul. He's enamored with his new-found Faith, the Spotless Bride of Christ, and so he cuts away more and more "imperfection" -- more and more humans -- until he's left with little outside of himself.

Matthew

My statement on the matter:

I leave God to sort out who the heretics are. I adhere to whatever position the One True Church of God holds, and to whatever definitions of heresies or heretics She defined. Those that are heretics (formal or otherwise) according to THOSE standards, I deem heretics according to those standards (formal or otherwise). Those who are not, I deem are not.

I cannot read the minds, hearts and souls of every member of this board, thus I cannot know if they are heretics, or to what degree, or what type. Thus I cannot say (in my ignorance, perhaps) that they are not. I cannot allow the possibility of SAYING there are not, if in fact there WERE, unknown to me. Being largely ignorant of the facts, I cannot in conscience exclude the possibility.

What I CAN say, and DO agree with, is that I BELIEVE (though I might be mistaken) that the majority of people here are PROBABLY Catholic, because pretty much everyone holds the position they do with good will... that is, TRYING to adhere to God's One, True Faith and Church. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, holding errors without really knowing they are errors is not something that can get you kicked out of the Church automatically. If I am in error here, I hope Chant can refer me to the information about the truth.

I would say to Chant... be careful. You may be asking people to violate their conscience. As I cannot say with certainty everyone is or isn't a heretic, I'm sure neither can anyone else. You tell us (rightly) not to pass judgment, and then demand that to stay here, we pass it certainly in favor, not knowing the truth of the matter because, as you say rightly, we CAN NOT JUDGE, and therefore cannot consent!

Thus, I think this particular demand may be going to far. I see your point. I also think the endless fighting and condemnations are bad, both for the forum and in general. But I can't in conscience attest to something I do not know for certain. Neither can any other Catholic. Perhaps the thing to do was to address the behaviors or certain problems you wish to eliminate (understandably) from the forum, rather than putting it quite this way.

I agree that it should be against the rules to hurl anathemas, to tell people they are not Catholic, or that sort of thing. This is to take upon one's self the judgments only God and His Church can make, or have any right to. That SHOULD be against the rules, here, or in any Catholic forum, unless perhaps the person professes to be a Catholic and a Buddhist or something, or says openly they are not a Catholic. Likewise, "stalking" people with the issue of sedevacantism by ambushing them in unrelated threads should be, and of course, already IS against the rules (to my knowledge). Posting questionable visions, things in support of antipopes, things against known points of Catholic dogma, and other such things also should be against the rules in a respectable Catholic forum. These things everyone SHOULD have to agree to. Even the most well-meaning sedevacantist should know better than to come on a forum whose official position is that of the SSPX, and post literature in support of other popes, or against traditional dogmas. Even posts against (at LEAST pre-vatican II) cannonized saints are scandalous, and should not be allowed.

In other words, I agree that a drastic change is in order, to ensure the peace of those who know there are better, more helpful and more productive things we could be discussing here. I agree that new rules SHOULD be in place, and that a number of breaches of those rules SHOULD result in banning, or at least temporary banning. Some people may call this being "thought police". Traditional Catholics should call it common sense on a Traditional Catholic forum, to not directly ATTACK Traditional Catholicism (even if it may be discussed about points someone is in confusion about). It should be common sense, too, that false (unapproved) visions and prophecies, are dangerous and potentially harmful to ALL Catholic laity, traditional or otherwise, as they may come rather from the Devil than from God for all we know.

Yes, there are many changes I agree should be made, and I agree certain members so offend traditional Catholic thought and even the spirit of charity, that they should be banned for the common good. But this way of doing things may well be asking people to violate their consciences... and whether their consciences are right or wrong in the matter, that is NEVER a good thing.

I'm sure you were simply fed up, and in your zeal to do this forum some serious good, you probably just overlooked this. But you know my scrupulous conscience, and you know that I am, for certain, a traditional Catholic... and I'm telling you that because I am ignorant of the matter of heresies and heretics in law, and because I cannot judge men's souls, I cannot rule out the possibility of there being heretics here, even though I may, because of people's usually sincere intentions, and the confusion in the Church, I may highly doubt that there are. If I cannot agree to this, I cannot fathom any one else being able to if they stop and think about it.

I hope you will perhaps rethink your wording, as I'm sure this is the chief problem in what you are trying to do.

Quote from: fkpagnanelli

Quote from: Matthew

There are no formal heretics present on CathInfo; and (with few exceptions) none that still need to convert to Catholicism.


...

God bless,

Matthew

I also reject the above for the same aforementioned reasons, and I do not accept your "God bless", since you worship a different "god" than I.

The Catholic God, whom I worship, seeks Truth before communion.

You're banned, FKPagnanelli.

Go convert heretics somewhere else.

Enjoy your "Home Alone Catholic Faith: population 5".

Hopefully, before you die, you won't fall into bitter despair and give up the Faith entirely, and proceed to embrace the most base of human pleasures. It could happen. It has happened before.

Don't think that the devil tempts every man the same way. He wouldn't tempt YOU to gluttony, perhaps, but he WOULD tempt you to excessive fasting, so that eventually you give up mortification entirely and end up worse than you started. You need to understand how the devil works.

May God grant you the grace to overcome your errors and pride.

Matthew

 :applause: :applause:

Matthew 1, FK 0........now raoul will be number #2 man for CM to ally with......a return to normalcy...sorta

Matthew's prev remark above that there is a crisis in the Church without precedent is indicative of the phony sspx logic. Matthew has also claimed that he is not in the business of judging Popes and then proceeds to call Peter De Luna an anti-pope which acc to von Pastor this is not even true.

If Peter De Luna or anyone else is an anti-pope and the situation now in the Church is a crisis without precedent, then by this thinking, the v2 popes would have to be anti-popes because the crisis in the Church is again without precedent making the situation in Matthew's own words worse than the De Luna dilema. If it is now worse than the De Luna which is called anti-pope how can the v2 imposters not be the same????

This is why the phony sspx is double minded and we all know that the Roman Catholic Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

All further cracks re:MJ will be met with a defense!! Ciao

Matthew's prev remark above that there is a crisis in the Church without precedent is indicative of the phony sspx logic. Matthew has also claimed that he is not in the business of judging Popes and then proceeds to call Peter De Luna an anti-pope which acc to von Pastor this is not even true.

If Peter De Luna or anyone else is an anti-pope and the situation now in the Church is a crisis without precedent, then by this thinking, the v2 popes would have to be anti-popes because the crisis in the Church is again without precedent making the situation in Matthew's own words worse than the De Luna dilema. If it is now worse than the De Luna which is called anti-pope how can the v2 imposters not be the same????

This is why the phony sspx is double minded and we all know that the Roman Catholic Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

All further cracks re:MJ will be met with a defense!! Ciao

Von Pastor is wrong.  Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject.

De Luna was an anti-pope.