Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.

Affirm
Deny
Doubt (meaning I don't think so)
Unsure
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance  (Read 8815 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14921
  • Reputation: +6189/-917
  • Gender: Male
Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2025, 09:31:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2025, 08:01:36 AM
    Stubborn, we’ve been through this.  Major heresies cannot be abjured by a priest or in confession.  Martin Luther could NOT abjure his heresy in confession.  His sin was too public for that.  He had to be summoned to Rome, for a papal inquest and then formally and publicly abjure. 

    Yes, a simple heresy can be abjured by a simple confession.  But the V2 popes and modernists are at the level of error of Martin Luther.  Confession doesn’t cut it.  A public abjuration would be necessary so ALL THE FAITHFUL WORLDWIDE would know that these guys repent and were wrong.  We know this won’t happen, but that’s what it would take for them to get back into the Church.
    So what? 

    Fr. Luther only had to abjure his heresies to be absolved - yet, he remained a Catholic priest in the sin of heresy through it all. And yet the no good heretic could still do what all Catholic priests do, namely, administer the sacraments in dire emergencies. Since his death, it is to his everlasting shame that he will always be a Catholic priest for all eternity. The evil excommunicated heretic, apostate and schismatic that he was, he never ceased being a Catholic priest.    

    There is a difference there even if no one wants to admit it. The difference is between one who was never Catholic having to go through at least a few months to a year of instruction and THEN become a member of the Church before finally being absolved in confession, and a Catholic who has to make an abjuration of heresy, even if that's before the whole world, and then be absolved in confession.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12781
    • Reputation: +8139/-2505
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
    « Reply #31 on: October 20, 2025, 10:01:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stubborn on October 20, 2025, 09:31:52 AM
     There is a difference there even if no one wants to admit it. The difference is between one who was never Catholic having to go through at least a few months to a year of instruction and THEN become a member of the Church before finally being absolved in confession, and a Catholic who has to make an abjuration of heresy, even if that's before the whole world, and then be absolved in confession.
    Yes, the difference between Martin Luther (a catholic) and a guy like Charlie Kirk (protestant).  Yes, it's a big difference.  Your point is well taken.

    Quote
    Fr. Luther only had to abjure his heresies to be absolved - yet, he remained a Catholic priest in the sin of heresy through it all. And yet the no good heretic could still do what all Catholic priests do, namely, administer the sacraments in dire emergencies. Since his death, it is to his everlasting shame that he will always be a Catholic priest for all eternity. The evil excommunicated heretic, apostate and schismatic that he was, he never ceased being a Catholic priest. 
    Yes, we get your point.  He's still a priest.

    But your ignoring the other problem.  Luther was excommunicated, just like all modern-day Modernists.  Masons, heretics, etc are in a state of MAJOR excommunication (and all manner of canon law penalties).  These CANNOT be removed simply by confession.

    There's a process; a public meeting; a trial.  (assuming the Church was operating at full, anti-heretical capacity).  So a 'public, manifest heretic' can be forgiven ONLY AFTER they abjure their heresy.

    It's like a thief who stole $100,000.  Can they simply go to confession?  No.  They must also do restitution and pay the money back.

    Can an excommunicated heretic simply go to confession?  No.  They must make PUBLIC restitution and PUBLIC abjuration of heresies, towards the public, whom they scandalized and led into sin.

    Do you get the point?
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14921
    • Reputation: +6189/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Poll for Those Who Consider Themselves Part of the Resistance
    « Reply #32 on: October 20, 2025, 11:20:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2025, 10:01:35 AM
    Yes, the difference between Martin Luther (a catholic) and a guy like Charlie Kirk (protestant).  Yes, it's a big difference.  Your point is well taken.
    Yes, we get your point.  He's still a priest.

    But your ignoring the other problem.  Luther was excommunicated, just like all modern-day Modernists.  Masons, heretics, etc are in a state of MAJOR excommunication (and all manner of canon law penalties).  These CANNOT be removed simply by confession.

    There's a process; a public meeting; a trial.  (assuming the Church was operating at full, anti-heretical capacity).  So a 'public, manifest heretic' can be forgiven ONLY AFTER they abjure their heresy.

    It's like a thief who stole $100,000.  Can they simply go to confession?  No.  They must also do restitution and pay the money back.

    Can an excommunicated heretic simply go to confession?  No.  They must make PUBLIC restitution and PUBLIC abjuration of heresies, towards the public, whom they scandalized and led into sin.

    Do you get the point?
    I get your point of course, but you are mixed up.

     Yes, an excommunicant can simply go to confession - depending, as I already said: "it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
     
    Otherwise, why, in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, is there is a general absolution from the censures  of the Church? It is because an excommunicated heretic can simply go to confession - depending on what I said above in italics - have the censure lifted and then be absolved by the priest.

    You're failing to consider that in-between making the abjuration and being absolved, the heretic is still a heretic because not having been absolved yet he still has the sin of heresy on his soul. Abjuration is not a way to self absolve.   

    What this means is that a Catholic with the sin of heresy, whom you insist is not a member, is indeed receiving a sacrament that only members of the Church may receive.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 2 [3]
    « previous next »