Heresy is a worse sin than disobedience.

Absolutely. They are marching to hell with an army behind them.

It really is sickening. I wish that there would be some manning up, and excommunication. The coddling isn't working, and the media is on the bad guys side, causing the masses to side with the heretics. If they are public figures, or religious leaders, and they are teaching, preaching or passing laws that are gravely sinful, they need to be dealt with. The velvet glove is not working, time to pull out the iron fist.

Go ahead, just call her a heretic.................

Seriously, I just don't understand the claim.

It's a good thing that this site is always pleasant.

I'm speaking on behalf of those who have been accused of heresies in the context of discussion and just saying that we all have flaws that distort belief, every person, but to attribute it to heresy, has to involve a much deeper exploration of the facts than what's revealed on a discussion board. If you've never been accused of a heresy, it won't seem like such a big deal, but it is a bothersome practice for people who are genuine but just not formally educated. The qualities of faith don't solely rest on formal education. S'all I'm saying. Sheesh, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

People live the Catholic faith in many different ways. Unfortunately some Catholics believe they have the one true way, that they are more Catholic than the rest of us, and that God is as narrow-minded and eager to punish the rest of us as they are.

Very few Catholics where I live, in Ireland, have such an intolerant attitude. So, while I may be in a minority on this board, I am in the majority of Catholics in this country.

Nobody... Oh, never mind.

You're just too close to England.

Maybe, but let's get serious for a second here....either one, unrepented, earns you damnation....so 'a slightly better hell' is not really much of a reward....

It doesn't matter on whose behalf you are speaking, there is merely no sense to the statement that we would all be sinless if we didn't harbor faulty beliefs and understandings.

Regarding heresy, the simple fact is that there are ideas that are heretical. Period. If I hold them, if you hold them, if someone else holds them, it doesn't change whether or not they are heretical. A heresy is a heresy is a heresy, no matter who has what feelings attached to it.

Granted, I don't get accused of heresy on the regular, but if I did, I would probably look into why that was happening, and not assume it was because everyone else is overzealous. Why, after all, would I criticize their out of balance zeal without first criticizing my own out of balance understanding? How would that make any sense?

In general, I quite agree. However, the rub lies in defining "tolerance". There should be tolerance for the Catholic who is seeking to know the truth and to live and practice as a faithful Catholic...let he and his priest and God work it out. But, how can the Church or its members tolerate those who profess, advocate, and practice error and heresy? And should we?f

I hold we should tolerate the seeker of truth and expunge those who would destroy the Church in the name of universal tolerance.

Unfortunately, "tolerance", in contemporary language, has become a synonym for "license". As I learned about the Church, I was dismayed to learn about priests and nuns who publicly advocated positions that were in direct contradiction to the teachings and discipline of the Church. The core of their arguments seem to be that we should be more accepting, modern, flexible, and "tolerant".

BTW, I do understand the reaction to those who profess to be more Catholic than others. Cudgels come in many forms.

It makes perfect sense that the more pure our beliefs and enlightened our understanding... the more fervently we desire to reject sin. Christian life is a process of achieving such a state. Now for instance, if you think that I've committed the heresy of pelagianism or something by saying that... that's your opinion. I believe in the doctrine of original sin utterly. All I was saying was that as St Paul told us, we can know things by their fruits. The beliefs and understandings nourish our attitudes and behaviours and direct us away from sin. Sure we can say we believe something... but the evidence of true belief is reflected in a growth towards more purity and humility and love. We'll never be as pure as Jesus or Mary, but if that's what you've extrapolated by my comment, perhaps you're providing an example of the OP's issue.



That's not the OP's point. It's about those who extrapolate heretical beliefs from comments that ordinary Catholics make in the course of discussion.



Personally I try always to do more than just look at myself. I have a spiritual director that I see once a month and I'm doing Theology and Philosophy at University as of this year. My problem is that I happen to adore and love the teachings and theology that's come from our last Pope John Paul, and often times that's enough to put a target on a persons back to the some people.

I'm confused about what you're trying to say here, as I remember it as being Jesus who taught us that we will know truth by the fruit it bears (while warning us against false prophets and heresy). St. Paul does identify the fruits of the Spirit, but I don't think that's the passage you're thinking of, is it? Maybe we are thinking of very different things, or maybe I am forgetting something.

Regardless, it is important to note that purity and clarity are not synonymous. Thus, it is an error for us to use them synonymously. Do you think that Satan is in Hell because He just didn't know that he was doing anything wrong? Do you think God would allow him to spend eternity in Hell if he was merely unclear about right and wrong? Or, do you think it is more likely that Satan is quite aware that He is sinning and He is going to keep doing it anyway?

If I go to Confession and say to a priest that I think I committed a mortal sin but wasn't sure if I had or not, what would he ask me?



What you're identifying here is a difference in what we claim to believe as opposed to what we actually believe. That is not the same as a difference in being confused about something as opposed to understanding something.

Do you think that saying we believe something that we don't truly believe is the same as being confused about the particulars of something that we truly believe? Don't you think one of those things is lacking honesty while the other isn't? I'm not sure why you would equate those two circumstances.



This doesn't make any sense to me at all, so I'm going to ask you to clarify what you're trying to say here.



A heretical belief expressed by anyone, be they considered "ordinary" or somehow extraordinary, does not change whether or not the belief is heretical. Again, heresy is heresy.



I don't know who "the some people" are to whom you're referring, but it is merely a fact of life that people disagree, and engage in conversation about disagreement.

It's not St. Paul; it's Christ Himself (Matt. 7:16.) That verse does need to be applied carefully, since fruits themselves are not always easy to judge.

Other than the mistaken citation and the warning about careful judgment, the paragraph quoted strikes me as quite reasonable in setting forth a general rule. Satan is a puzzle, but then the question of how angels could fall in the first place is (AFAIK) very much an open one.

I'm curious about what you mean.

Part of my curiosity is likely due to my not thinking Satan is much of a puzzle. He made a choice, with sufficient knowledge for culpability (as evidenced by his current residence), and lost his place in Heaven. He persists in defiance of God every day. I'm not sure what is puzzling about that, but then I don't ponder Satan much. I could be missing out on some deeper thoughts that other people have on the subject.

Is it puzzling because we don't understand how someone can experience the glories of Heaven and the beatific vision and choose something else?

At least someone who is disobedient can still have faith. A heretic can't.

But one, such as a priest or religious, who has taken vow of obedience, that vow is binding under sin, it matters if you have faith if you still sin....come on man you're too smart to try to employ the old fallacy that it is better to commit 'the lesser sin'.....sin is sin, and both of these sins, unrepented, will earn hell.