/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>737532

Simple: To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic. A person must be baptized to commit heresy.

Circumcisers (teaching that you must be circumsized to be Christian), Gnostics, Monatism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, Catharism, Protestantism (individual interpretation), and Jansenism are all forms of heresy.

Most traditionalists just want to go back to the good ol traditions. They don't disagree with the Church's doctrine.

However radical trade or sedevacants are heretics because they deny what the church teaches, they refuse to recognise the pope and an ecumenical council.

>How do Catholic know they are not latae sentenciae excommunicated for disagreeing with the Catechism on some issue?

Let's say I'm wrong on some mistake.

If I find out what the church teaches is different from my opinion I must accept it blindly. If I decide to keep my opinion against the church than I am an heretic.

No one is guilty of heresy if he doesn't know what to believe.

>>737538

What is "church teaching"? The church used to teach in favor of the death penalty and now it doesn't: if you disagreed with this teaching before it was changed, are you a heretic and excommunicated latae sentenciae?

Basically you have to believe in every article of faith and moral the church defines.

I'm order to know what to believe you buy a Catechism. That's their purpose.

And when lots of people are in doubt in what to believe because there's no explicit teaching saying something, the pope affirms a certain doctrine as infallible and binding to all Catholics.

>>737546

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not Catholic? I'm not saying you have to be in order to understand such things, but it's not that hard and fast. You can disagree with the Church, but some things - like if you're openly "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion - then you can very well be latae sentenciae excommunicate. You can disagree with church teachings (such as which direction the priest faces or what language Mass should be), but not dogma (like the ten commandments or the Nicene Creed).

>>737532

>Literally all Catholics I know, even traditionalists, disagree with some church document

Good thing for all Catholics then that church documents =! Church doctrine.

>How do Catholic know they are not latae sentenciae excommunicated for disagreeing with the Catechism on some issue?

You can, in theory, disagree with the complete catechism and still be in communion (note the "in theory" part though).

Catechism doesn't constitute as dogma nor doctrine but more of a Q&A of these.

I do not know about a comprehensive list of dogmas and doctrines though.

To be declared a heretic and excommunicated one must proclaim it as an absolute truth and not repent from it when corrected.

This means that even a person frequently committing grave sins e.g. fornication can still be an "orthodox" catholic in faith if he knows what he's doing is contrary to the teachings of the Church and should be avoided.

If you're someone who goes around saying same-sex marriage or fornication or stealing or murdering is ok even when you are well aware of the Church's stance on it and the absoluteness of the teaching yet still defend your heresy as a truth then you're auto-excommunicated and a heretic.

>>737546

>The church used to teach in favor of the death penalty and now it doesn't

Aha, here's a tricky part.

The pope teaches against the death penalty, the Church does not…in a direct sense.

Nothing in the bible says that the death penalty is obligatory for a nation, nor does it forbid it.

We can, however, read how God Himself instituted the death penalty for numerous trespasses in the Old Testament and can conclude that the death penalty is definitely not sinful when looking to the whole of the Scriptures (since Christ didn't abolish it in the New Testament like divorce nor fulfill it like the dietary laws).

If by any chance the pope declares capital punishment an official sin through infallibility, he auto-excommunicates himself by declaring a sin what God has allowed.

these kinds of things do make papal infallibility as a term a weird, useless joke, but that's just my opinion.

>>737566

Basically this OP.

In theory even a faggot could be a faithful Catholic if he knew what he was doing was contrary to God's law and that he was going to hell for it and believed in everything the church believed, but liked to be a faggot more.

Of course it is just in theory, because the human mind would try to find some justification for it.

>>737573

>Aha, here's a tricky part.

>The pope teaches against the death penalty, the Church does not…in a direct sense.

How depressing, no wonder sedevacautists claim to be the pope after starting a monastery on a trailer park.

>>737543

>However radical trade or sedevacants are heretics because they deny what the church teaches, they refuse to recognise the pope and an ecumenical council.

But the sedevacantist position is that those popes and that council denied centuries of earlier church teachings and were therefore heretics and don't have to be followed.

>>737575

He would actually go to purgatory.

>>737716

No they wouldn't. Anyone in morta sin goes directly to hell.

>>737648

>But the sedevacantist position is that those popes and that council denied centuries of earlier church teachings

Exactly it is what they claim, but it just isn't true. Some of them even deny the baptism of blood and desire age old church doctrines, o there's deny salvation outside the visible membership in the Church, while we have testimonies from the church fathers (St. Justin comes to memory) and the church, for example one encyclical of Pius IX.

In being sedevacants they are not only denying the Council but too the Popes before it.

>>737543

Actually sedevacantism is not heresy, but it is the mortal sin of Schism.

>>737839

True