Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Cato on June 20, 2014, 06:32:52 PM
-
Are all Protestants heretics? Is a person a heretic if they never professed the Catholic faith? Would N.O. Catholics be heretics too since they practice communion in the hand et al? My question is is a person a heretic even if they don't know they are a heretic?
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
-
Protestants are considered heretics. A heretic is not merely one who rejects anything related to the Catholic faith but one who "pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth of divine and Catholic faith" (Canon 1325 - 2). Protestants openly deny many Catholic dogmas such as The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. Also nominal (cafeteria) Catholics who say "I will believe this and not that", picking and choosing from the Catholic Faith according to their whim, are considered heretics. In formal terms, a Catholic who denies the supremacy of the Pope becomes a schismatic (such as the Eastern Orthodox), whereas a Catholic who renounces his religion is considered an apostate.
-
Are all Protestants heretics? Is a person a heretic if they never professed the Catholic faith? Would N.O. Catholics be heretics too since they practice communion in the hand et al? My question is is a person a heretic even if they don't know they are a heretic?
Protestants are heretics as the Priotestant religoins deny various truths of the Catholic Faith.
The issues of communion in the hand et al are disciplines. They do not touch on matters of faith and morals. If someone who recieved communioni in the hand were to deny that Jesus were truly present in the Blessed Sacrament then he would be a heretic.
It is possible to be a heretic without realizing it.
-
I personally believe that most the Conservative Novus Ordo/Indult are not Heretics, and adhere to the True Faith if they are not Falsifying data in order to back up their positions on Vatican II.
Most Post Vatican II "catholics" are now what the mainstream calls cafeteria catholics, and they are most certainly Heretics.
The Eastern Churches do adhere to some Heresies, but most of these Heresies have occurred after Papal and Council declarations of which they were not a party of due to the fact of Schism. For this reason many Traditional Catholics prefer to call them Schismatics, rather than Heretics.
Protestants are certainly Heretics as they Objectively deny Multiple Dogmas very explicitly, most notably in the Eschatology of the (Invisible) Church of Christ as apposed to the Visible Catholic Church (which is the True Church of Christ).
Ultimately Vatican II accepted this Hersey in the docuмent Lumen Gentium, which means that the Novus Ordo is Ultimately a member of the Protestant Hersey.
-
The Eastern Churches do adhere to some Heresies, but most of these Heresies have occurred after Papal and Council declarations of which they were not a party of due to the fact of Schism. For this reason many Traditional Catholics prefer to call them Schismatics, rather than Heretics.
The Eastern Rite Catholics are Catholics in the fullest sense of the word.
-
The Eastern Churches do adhere to some Heresies, but most of these Heresies have occurred after Papal and Council declarations of which they were not a party of due to the fact of Schism. For this reason many Traditional Catholics prefer to call them Schismatics, rather than Heretics.
The Eastern Rite Catholics are Catholics in the fullest sense of the word.
I used Eastern Churches, because I don't like to use eastern orthodox.
Sorry if that is an improper term.
The Eastern Rites put most Latins to shame now days.
-
Thank you, all!
-
Where is Traditional Catholic teaching on Protestants?
I just read this post on another site:
They (Modern-day Protestants) aren't heretics, they simply (from the Catholic point of view) hold erroneous views.
Of course this is probably a Novus Ordite speaking, but.....
-
According to novus ordo, no one is a heretic, except a Traditional Catholic. Which I would say is heresy itself to believe in such.
-
What about a non-Catholic who actually accepts everything the Church teaches, considers himself a Catholic, attends Mass, but sees no need to join the Church formally? (I'm sure there must be such people!) Is he a heretic?
-
I know such a guy at my parish married to a trad wih plural catholic children. More involved in stuff like Holy Name than I am. I just like the guy and treat him with charity and let God worry about him. Not sure what else to do or think.
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
So where does the person born into Protestantism fit in?
Does one have to be Catholic first to be a heretic?
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
So where does the person born into Protestantism fit in?
Does one have to be Catholic first to be a heretic?
An infant validly baptized is a Catholic until he reaches the age of reason, where if he manifests his false religion, he can't be considered a Catholic. He is a material heretic at least at this point. If he reaches such a point where he both holds materially to error and rejects the rule of faith of the Catholic Church while being aware that he ought to be subject to it, his heresy is then formal.
The material/formal distinction is a moral one, and deals with the heretic's guilt before God. However, protestants are public heretics and as such, without regard to whether they're formal or material, they are not to be counted as members of the Church.
In a certain sense, yes; one must be Catholic first to be a heretic because part of the definition of a heretic is one who claims the name of Christian (which really and ontologically means Catholic) and dissents from a truth of the Christian faith. Jews, Buddhists, atheists etc. can't really be called heretics.
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
So where does the person born into Protestantism fit in?
Does one have to be Catholic first to be a heretic?
An infant validly baptized is a Catholic until he reaches the age of reason, where if he manifests his false religion, he can't be considered a Catholic. He is a material heretic at least at this point. If he reaches such a point where he both holds materially to error and rejects the rule of faith of the Catholic Church while being aware that he ought to be subject to it, his heresy is then formal.
The material/formal distinction is a moral one, and deals with the heretic's guilt before God. However, protestants are public heretics and as such, without regard to whether they're formal or material, they are not to be counted as members of the Church.
In a certain sense, yes; one must be Catholic first to be a heretic because part of the definition of a heretic is one who claims the name of Christian (which really and ontologically means Catholic) and dissents from a truth of the Christian faith. Jews, Buddhists, atheists etc. can't really be called heretics.
I like you answered my question in the other thread all in one post! Thanks! :-)
-
Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.
Does the Church declare (in normal times), this person "Guilty", until proven "Innocent" ?
Can this person be refused Holy Communion until the final declaration ?
Does any group in these troubled times have the authority to refuse a person who they determine to be , "Suspect"
For the scholars ,, lets see how you do on these vital questions ....
A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”
-
In a certain sense, yes; one must be Catholic first to be a heretic because part of the definition of a heretic is one who claims the name of Christian (which really and ontologically means Catholic) and dissents from a truth of the Christian faith. Jews, Buddhists, atheists etc. can't really be called heretics.
Is is correct to call the above infidels?
-
A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”
Is it correct then, in your opinion, to identify anyone who fits the definition above a heretic then? Especially when they have the written word to explain Church teaching at their finger tips.
-
Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.
Does the Church declare (in normal times), this person "Guilty", until proven "Innocent" ?
Can this person be refused Holy Communion until the final declaration ?
Does any group in these troubled times have the authority to refuse a person who they determine to be , "Suspect"
For the scholars ,, lets see how you do on these vital questions ....
A basic definition of heresy, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, is “adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma.”
"Suspect of Heresy" is a canonical term and it doesn't mean what you'd think. It usually refers to those who aid heretics in some way or another, but do not express heresy themselves. They may publish their books or support them in some other way, but their own writings and actions are not heretical.
Kind of in a rush now, but later I'll post some sources-- if memory serves, once the fact of a crime is established, the offender is presumed guilty and is given a chance to prove himself otherwise.
As to the refusal of Holy Communion, in these times I don't see how it could be licit unless the person was quite obviously a public sinner, or had incurred excommunication beyond any doubt. Obvious examples would be Nancy Peℓσѕι, Joe Biden, et al.
-
Kind of in a rush now, but later I'll post some sources-- if memory serves, once the fact of a crime is established, the offender is presumed guilty and is given a chance to prove himself otherwise.
I believe you're referring to Canon 2200 §2 of the Pio-Benedictine Code, which states:
Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.
In English, this reads:
When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice is presumed until the contrary is proved.
In this case, the use of malice, which itself descends from malitia, as it occurs in English commentaries on the code is a somewhat troublesome selection to replace dolus, which is defined not as a character of transgression marking it with purpose of deliberate injury but rather conscious understanding that an act in question was contrary to established law.
-
Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.
Given this thread already has involvement from others; I'll clarify the particular canon you referenced Director and leave it at that. You already have intelligent posters here; so without being any more distracting; I'll leave it to them or anybody else to answer your questions (in your post).
Canon 2316
"Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is Suspected of Heresy."
Canon Law: A Text and Commentary: Bouscaren and Ellis
"Suspicion of Heresy. One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis, if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (C. 2315).
Co-operation in Heresy. One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected if heresy (C. 2316)
A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: Woywod Vol. II
Suspicion of Heresy 2159. A person who is suspected of heresy, and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, shall be forbidden to exercise legal ecclesiastical acts; if he is a cleric, and after repeated admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divinis. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties here stated, and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy (Canon 2315). A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy (Canon 2316)
Canon 1258
"§ 1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics."
"§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent."
A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: Vol II Woywod
"Participation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Worship: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics. At funerals of non-Catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is no danger of persversion or scandal, passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person may be tolerated for a grave reason, which in doubtful cases must be approved by the bishop (Canon 1258)"
-
Are all Protestants heretics? Is a person a heretic if they never professed the Catholic faith? Would N.O. Catholics be heretics too since they practice communion in the hand et al? My question is is a person a heretic even if they don't know they are a heretic?
What does it matter who is or isn't a heretic if the ones here who are not sedevacantist don't believe anything happens to you anyways if you're a heretic?
As far as the people here are concerned, you can be an apostate antichrist and still be in the Church and be saved.
How can anyone here say any Protestant is a heretic if they believe their "authorities" and "fellow-Catholics" who are even worse than Protestants are still in the Church and can be saved?
How can any non-sedevacantist here dare speak about modernism if they believe you can well be a Modernist and still be in the Church and be saved?
So what?
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
Are these distinctions to be found in dogmatic theology (I just purchased Van Noort!) or the Code of Canon Law or both?
Can you suggest which commentary on the old Code of Canon Law is best for use by a layman?
-
It's important to distinguish between various types of heresy, because the "type" of heresy determines the punishment of the heretic, his guilt before God and his relationship to the Church. All formal heresy, which is when a person knows that the Catholic Church teaches X and the person chooses to deny or doubt X, is a mortal sin. If such heresy is public, then in addition to the mortal sin one is no longer a member of the Church. Material heretics dissent from what the Church teaches, but they are unaware that they're supposed to believe what the Church teaches-- such a heretic is not guilty of heresy before God, however if he is a public heretic, he is not a member of the Church.
Private heresy does not sever one's membership in the Church.
Are these distinctions to be found in dogmatic theology (I just purchased Van Noort!) or the Code of Canon Law or both?
Can you suggest which commentary on the old Code of Canon Law is best for use by a layman?
The distinction between formal and material properly belongs to moral theology. Though modern writers tend to explain this without the sort of precision that one would like to see. Of course, I am "stuck" with English-only sources, perhaps works in other languages do a better job. I think that De Lugo is probably the best source available, thanks to a translation by J.S. Daly: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1632&sid=34bd18f3efaca7ecb7013b109d8ce926
That's not to say that the modern authorities are useless, but just that they oftentimes imply or even outright state that Catholics can be material heretics.
As far as public vs. occult, that pertains more to dogmatic theology and canon law. Do you have Van Noort yet? You'll want to read his chapter on membership, which is probably the best synopsis on the issue I've read. Vol II, starting on page 236. If you haven't received yours yet, you can read a scan of the chapter here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/224429380/Van-Noort-Vol-2-Members-of-the-Church
At the turn of the last century, there was an impulse to make theology more accessible to the laity, so there are manuals written in mind for laymen of varying levels of intellect and free time. However, this pressure never occurred in canon law, and as such canon law manuals are always written with the seminarian in mind. And since law is law, and precision, definitions and terminology is everything (not to say it is unimportant in these other fields) there is no way to really "dumb it down." Doesn't mean a good handle can't be had on it. I only own two proper commentaries, and Penny Catechism quoted from both of them.
I would recommend Bouscaren and Ellis to start. Pros: Easily and intuitively formatted, easy to find what you're looking for, few "over-explanations," comfortable size, good typeface with appropriate bolding and organization, and best of all you can find a copy for probably twenty USD with shipping. Maybe even cheaper if you hold out a bit.
Cons: Because they avoid over-explaining things, there is a tendency to under-explain them. Not all of the canons are treated, most notably they do not comment on canon 882, which is a shame. It's by no means a short book, but in the scheme of things it's definitely brief. Of course, this is probably what makes it a good intro book.
Woywood is far more comprehensive, though there are a few things I dislike which would keep me from recommending as a first commentary.
(BTW-- Woywood has a "practical commentary" on the Code, and then he has another commentary. I speak of the "practical commentary" and don't know much about the other. The reason I bought the "Practical Commentary" is that it's the "Practical commentary" that I always find cited as a source. So, when I refer to Woywood, I am referring to his "Practical Commentary")
There are two ways you can buy Woywood, both with their own pros and cons. One way is to buy the two volume version. Pros are that it's easier to read because it's not as big. Don't underestimate the physical size of a book when considering between different versions! You're the one who'll be sitting there reading it for hours. Now, I have not actually used a two volume set but have a friend who owns them and I can tell you that I would much prefer to read out of those rather than the condensed one volume. As to the content, it's substantially the same-- though I'm not sure about the index in the two volume set. One drawback with the two volume set is cost. You'll be lucky to get the set for less than fifty USD. That might not be a problem for you, but the cost of these books can add up quickly.
A cheaper alternative is getting the Practical Commentary in the 1957 edition which was revised by a Callixtus Smith. It's both volumes put into one book. The main downside to this is that it's pretty big. While it's far more comprehensive than Bouscaren, I find that it is not well organized. The index is comprehensive enough (it really is a great index) but it's very confusing because there are page numbers, canon numbers, and then PARAGRAPH numbers. Not to mention that because there are two volumes in one (plus appendix) the page numbers "start over" with the next volume, and I think they might even start over again for the appendices.
I think it's gratuitous to use paragraph numbers in a canon law book. The canons are numbered for a reason! Adding paragraph numbers just needlessly confuses things. Anyways, it's quite comprehensive and better yet, because it is a later edition it keeps in mind any changes to the law-- and there are changes. So for this reason, it is quite valuable, being the latest edition of a commentary on the 1917 by a tradition author available in English. The appendices are quite helpful as well. I was able to get the 1957 edition for around 30 USD including shipping.
What is also a tremendous resource, and FREE(!!!) is Augustine's commentary on the code. It is the oldest of the three, but it is definitely worth it's weight. Eight Volumes all available on archive.org for free. Incidentally, the eight volume set is not too expensive. I've done the math and if you play your cards right, you could end up paying about 15 USD per volume, and could probably get the set for less than 150 USD (that is, assuming you bought them one at a time).
Here is a link: https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary
There is also Abbo and Hannan, though I do not own them and have not used them. I've heard good things, though their commentary is even more expensive than Woywood's. And there are various other brief manuals. Once you get started, what you'll probably find more interesting than anything else are the various CUA dissertations for the D.C.L. degree. They are highly detailed dissertations on just a single canon, with historical synopsis. A few of these are available online for free. And depending on the one you want, they can typically be found for less than twenty dollars a volume.
Final note: Keep in mind that at least for the English commentaries, the code itself is not in the commentary. With Augustine, he gives it in Latin. Neither Bouscaren or Woywood consistently give the exact wording for each law, though they will for some. If you want the law itself in English, you will need to buy Dr. Peters translation. You'll spend 30-40 USD on that. Odd as it may sound, I do not think it's necessary, only helpful to have the actual code in English.
-
Where does one fit in who is labeled , "Suspect of Heresy", in that he does not believe in Baptism of Desire as a Doctrinal Church teaching.
Given this thread already has involvement from others; I'll clarify the particular canon you referenced Director and leave it at that. You already have intelligent posters here; so without being any more distracting; I'll leave it to them or anybody else to answer your questions (in your post).
Canon 2316
"Whoever in any manner willingly and knowingly helps in the promulgation of heresy, or who communicates in things divine with heretics against the prescription of Canon 1258, is Suspected of Heresy."
Canon Law: A Text and Commentary: Bouscaren and Ellis
"Suspicion of Heresy. One who is suspected of heresy, and who after warning fails to remove the cause of suspicion, shall be barred from legitimate acts, and if he is a cleric he shall moreover, after a repetition of the warning has proved fruitless, be suspended a divinis, if one who is suspected of heresy does not amend his life within six full months from the time when the penalty was incurred, he shall be considered a heretic and be subject to the penalties for heresy (C. 2315).
Co-operation in Heresy. One who spontaneously and with full knowledge helps in any way in the propagation of heresy, or who co-operates in divinis with heretics contrary to the provision of canon 1258, is suspected if heresy (C. 2316)
A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: Woywod Vol. II
Suspicion of Heresy 2159. A person who is suspected of heresy, and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, shall be forbidden to exercise legal ecclesiastical acts; if he is a cleric, and after repeated admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divinis. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties here stated, and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy (Canon 2315). A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy (Canon 2316)
Canon 1258
"§ 1. It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics."
"§ 2. Passive or merely material presence can be tolerated for the sake of honor or civil office, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent."
A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: Vol II Woywod
"Participation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Worship: It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics. At funerals of non-Catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is no danger of persversion or scandal, passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person may be tolerated for a grave reason, which in doubtful cases must be approved by the bishop (Canon 1258)"
You're a gem, PC. May I ask, is your Woywood the 1957 revised one volume, or an earlier two-volume edition?
-
Hey what's up Mith --
Kind words; thank you. My edition is the two volume set/ older edition
-
May I ask, are there paragraph numbers? I have the 1957 edition which I bought for economic reasons, and also because it was revised to reflect changes in the code since it's promulgation, but I'm quite annoyed at the paragraph numbers. Does yours have them as well?
-
May I ask, are there paragraph numbers? I have the 1957 edition which I bought for economic reasons, and also because it was revised to reflect changes in the code since it's promulgation, but I'm quite annoyed at the paragraph numbers. Does yours have them as well?
Mine does also: Third, Revised Edition copyright 1929
(http://[URL=http://s1032.photobucket.com/user/wkbsaint/media/273_zps417888c5.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1032.photobucket.com/albums/a401/wkbsaint/273_zps417888c5.jpg)[/URL][/img]
-
Heretics? The entire world is lost, there are no Catholics left, numerically speaking. What's it matter whether a non-Catholic is a formal or material or whatever, if the world ended this moment 99% of CATHOLICS would be lost, and you can forget about everyone else.
What if the Anti-Christ already came as only a false spiritual leader leading all Catholics to fall away from the faith or to practice a false Catholicism that allows them to do as they like, to live in mortal sin ?
The Anti-Christ's work has already been done, since numerically speaking there are no Catholics living the faith. Maybe JPII and B16 are the anti-Christ and Beast described in scripture, and the whole world missed the boat again?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODV1SV83nxA
Nobody knows it, even traditionalist all think that a place to go to have Latin Mass will solve everything and the world is fine.
-
Heretics? The entire world is lost, there are no Catholics left, numerically speaking. What's it matter whether a non-Catholic is a formal or material or whatever, if the world ended this moment 99% of CATHOLICS would be lost, and you can forget about everyone else.
What if the Anti-Christ already came as only a false spiritual leader leading all Catholics to fall away from the faith or to practice a false Catholicism that allows them to do as they like, to live in mortal sin ?
The Anti-Christ's work has already been done, since numerically speaking there are no Catholics living the faith. Maybe JPII and B16 are the anti-Christ and Beast described in scripture, and the whole world missed the boat again?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODV1SV83nxA
Nobody knows it, even traditionalist all think that a place to go to have Latin Mass will solve everything and the world is fine.
thanks for the reminder, especially with a lot of distractors/distractions everywhere.
time to kick up a notch and add acts/ prayers of reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary...
be vigilant to avoid sin/avoid offending God
strive harder to be pleasing to God and stay consistently in the state of Grace (if possible)
-
A belated thank-you to Mith for sharing his expertise on Canon Law commentaries and so many other subjects. That must truly be a staggering amount of information you are carrying around between your ears!