Where on earth do you get that idea from? Seriously. It's not something Jesus ever taught.

If I may I thought that one was only a heretic when they rejected one or more points of the Deposit of the Faith and then refused correction openly defying the Magisterium? And if so then isn't the Magisterium the only authority that could pronounce such? Or am I wrong?

And if I'm not wrong aren't these people who react to these bloggers-even though they are right in their judgement that what they(these bloggers) are writing IS heretical-aren't they acting beyond their power and ability in labeling these bloggers as heretics? Aren't they going beyond their lay status and authority in proclaiming such?

Would it not be more wise to submit the statements of these bloggers silently to the Bishops and let them handle it since they really are the proper authority?

Do you really not know? What are the conditions required to commit mortal sin?



I explained why it doesn't make sense. You're asking me a question that I've already answered.

You still owe me an explanation regarding the statement that you made about my providing an example of the OP's issue.

I have frequented discussion boards for almost 10 years now, and I must say that what is described in the article of the OP doesn’t look like anything I have ever read. And I have vistited some pretty nasty boards. The whole article seems like an subtle attack on everyone who is evil enough to utter criticism. I don’t doubt for a second that most (if not all) of the situastions mentioned in the OP article is made up. Or grossly exaggerated.

Says torn the resident Protestant Catholic.


SV

Jesus did not teach that sin leads to hell? That is news to me!

It's the new and improved Jesus.


SV

Where did Jesus teach that "disobedience to direction of authorities" "earns you damnation"?

Where did Jesus teach that "committing a heresy" "earns you damnation"?

Seriously, you do not believe that Jesus taught sin leads to hell?

But that seems to support my point. Grievous matter, sufficient reflection, full consent of the will, will constitute mortal sin. These things determined within the confessional with a Priest, is a lot different from lay people on message boards having that authority.




The OPs issue was with lay people attributing heresy to other people based strictly on comments that don't conform to their wording. I can only assume why you took issue with the comment I made because the only reason you gave was 'it doesn't make sense'. That was more of a statement of your opinion about its merits rather than giving any direction on how it was faulty theologically. If it's your opinion we can simply agree to disagree, but if it's a theological error, you need to direct me to the specific heresy for me to respond. I could only assume it was something about my belief on sin and the state of sinlessness. Unless you specify your theological problem with the statement, I'm not able to properly respond.

I'm pretty sure the author said it was an example of how things often go, yes. But it is a very unpleasant problem which stems from a sort of legalism. It misrepresents discipline and obedience and takes very little account of grace and mercy in its application to discussions. Libralism is so often caricatured to make a point and it's only fair that the comic relief be evenly distributed.

Nothing about "reflection" in anything I have been taught. You can commit mortal sin in a split second!

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Jesus certainly never taught that all sin (unrepented) "earns you damnation". Otherwise, instead of being able to love God who is infinitely merciful, we'd all be absolutely terrified all the time in case we died suddenly having sinned without repenting.

So can anyone answer these specific questions:

Question 1a: Where did Jesus teach that "disobedience to direction of authorities" is a sin?

Question 1b: Where did Jesus teach that "committing a heresy" is a sin?

Question 2a: Where did Jesus teach that "disobedience to direction of authorities" "earns you damnation"?

Question 2b: Where did Jesus teach that "committing a heresy" "earns you damnation"?

Yep, Jesus rattled off a database of specific sins. They were even hyperlinked to King James version of the Bible.

I am not wasting time with you.

Jesus taught about obedience. Read the New Testament.

Jesus taught about the danger of false teachers. Read the New Testament.

Jesus gave us a Church and the power to bind and loose. Read the New Testament.

OK, so you really don't know the conditions. Sufficient reflection is not one of them.

Because you don't know the conditions, you don't see how the conditions actually work against your stated point.



I have specified my problem with the statement, and gone into detail in a number of posts. The primary problem with the statement is that you made it up. It's not rooted in any Church teaching whatsoever. I explained why it didn't make sense.

Further, there are interesting things happening in your response. You seem to be asserting that one may propose any position on a theological matter and, unless it is a formally defined heresy, it should be held as worthy of merit. Is that your position?

It is also interesting that, by demanding that I identify a specific heresy, you equate my telling you that your position doesn't make sense to my telling you that you are a heretic holding to some unnamed heresy. That explains a lot about your highly subjective response to the otherwise objective conversation occurring in this thread. It's also more than a little hilarious that you complain about people calling others heretics, then demand that I call you one in order for you to "properly respond."

Perhaps another approach would be more effective.

Ellietrish, you claim:


Please explain what makes this statement true, using Church teaching.

But could it be said that your judgement of my 'pridefulness' and need to see me humbled before the crowd, constitutes a flaw in your Christian character? How do you know that nothing here teaches me? How do you know that I don't love this board for it's orthodoxy? How do you know that I haven't grown in immense appreciation of the witness of adult conversion from being here? How do you know that people here haven't stoked the fires of my desire to search and learn more deeply about Christ and our faith? Why does it matter that I don't seem to crawl over broken glass, self-flagellating to your feet?

To all of these questions, I submit:

"He that heareth you, heareth Me." Luke 10:16

Your actions or rather comments demonstrate you are not willing to set aside your own positions. Nothing you do demonstrates your love for this board or it's orthodoxy. Most of your posts speak against orthodoxy. Many of your posts end up with you stating how you were raised by 'catechists' as if you can't be wrong. Many of your posts end up with you stating how you have a spiritual director as if (again) you can't be wrong. Many of your posts end up with you talking about how you are involved in spiritual exercises as if that somehow makes you unable to be wrong.

Oh yes I know, it's the readers fault. It couldn't be your own fault that this is the perception you give.


SV

Why do you think I come here and contribute?