Where's the heresy

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1012797' date='Jun 26 2006, 08:28 PM']
Never said it was an either or thing. The topic isn't set up to be. And where praytell are you getting that its about not evangalizing? That's about the silliest thing I've read.
My point is if people want to point and say "heretic!" look no further than the guy sitting in the pew next to you. And I somewhat disagree with the statement that "priests have a lot to answer for"

We all have a lot to answer for. There's a little thing called the royal priesthood that we all participate in. We share in the glory and we share in the responsibility.

I could do a search and find dozens of threads talking about protestants, muslims and rad trads and how they need to change. I will find far less about catechizing Catholics. And if we properly catechize the guy sitting next to us in the pew, the only logical conclusion is we get more folks evangelizing.
[/quote]
You seemed to be criticizing people for posting threads concerning the beliefs of non-Catholics. I personally see nothing wrong with that (so long as it is done in charity), because to evangelize or defend the faith effectively with non-Catholics, we should understand correctly what they do and don't believe, as well as what the correct Catholic position is.

And I think hardly any of the people attacking heresies outside the Church are at all complacent concerning the topic heresy within the Church! I also see plenty of threads on Phatmass decrying heterodox teaching and heresy by liberal "Catholics" in the Church. (Of course, some would also tend to dismiss them as the ravings of "ignorant conservatives.")

As your poll has shown, most of us here are in agreement that heresy within the Church is a serious matter.

As for "priests having a lot to answer for," I didn't say all priests; I said specifically"liberal (i.e. heterodox) priests."
I am not saying that lay Catholics do not have a responsibility to evangelize and teach Catholic doctrine, but that priests and bishops are charged with this in a special way. The parish priest is the one Catholics look to to "represent the Church" in their life. If priests and bishops are neglecting to teach the truths of the Catholic Faith to their people, or worse, are teaching heresy, they are failing in their duties (no matter how passionate they may be about opposing immigration laws and the like).
I think if every bishop, if every parish priest, would boldly proclaim the Catholic Faith from the pulpit each Sunday, without fear or compromise, this would make a huge difference in the state of the Church worldwide.

Edited June 28, 2006 by Socrates

[Didacus]

Is there a difference between 'lack of faith' and being a 'heretic'?

How many within that 70% would you guess had a 'lack of faith' rather than being an outright heretic? (if there is a difference between the two)

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1013339' date='Jun 27 2006, 06:38 PM']
You seemed to be criticizing people for posting threads concerning the beliefs of non-Catholics. I personally see nothing wrong with that (so long as it is done in charity), because to evangelize or defend the faith effectively with non-Catholics, we should understand correctly what they do and don't believe, as well as what the correct Catholic position is.

And I think hardly any of the people attacking heresies outside the Church are at all complacent concerning the topic heresy within the Church! I also see plenty of threads on Phatmass decrying heterodox teaching and heresy by liberal "Catholics" in the Church. (Of course, some would also tend to dismiss them as the ravings of "ignorant conservatives.")

As your poll has shown, most of us here are in agreement that heresy within the Church is a serious matter.

As for "priests having a lot to answer for," I didn't say all priests; I said specifically"liberal (i.e. heterodox) priests."
I am not saying that lay Catholics do not have a responsibility to evangelize and teach Catholic doctrine, but that priests and bishops are charged with this in a special way. The parish priest is the one Catholics look to to "represent the Church" in their life. If priests and bishops are neglecting to teach the truths of the Catholic Faith to their people, or worse, are teaching heresy, they are failing in their duties (no matter how passionate they may be about opposing immigration laws and the like).
I think if every bishop, if every parish priest, would boldly proclaim the Catholic Faith from the pulpit each Sunday, without fear or compromise, this would make a huge difference in the state of the Church worldwide.
[/quote]


Well first of all, I have yet to meet a converted Catholic who told me (s)he converted because someone called them a heretic.

"Hey Bob what church do you go to?"
"Oh my whole family is methodist"
"Hey man don't you realize you're a heretic?"
"Really? Thanks for telling me! I'll get right on that!"



If the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith and if 70% of all Catholics don't believe that, I consider that problem #1 within our Church.

Hands down its #1.

Its bigger than protestantism
Its bigger than homosexuals demanding equal rights
Its bigger than a few women wanting to be priests
Its bigger than a Marty Haugen music


Now take any of those subjects and count the number of threads on each one, compare that to the subject of A MAJORITY OF US CATHOLICS who don't believe in the Eucharist.


I'm suggesting that our priorities are a bit askew. And while many of us do not come across women declaring themselves priests, etc., each and every one of us are meeting up with Catholics who do not believe in the Presence in the Eucharist.

In my opinion, we need to talk more about what we can do about this.

[Didacus]

hot stuff, that last post merits a free T-shirt and a high-five!

I agree in most part with what you've said.

If the Eucharist was taken as the true center of our lives, how much more effective we would be in dissipating sin? How lesser would the hold of the devil be onto the world if we where effective in bringing comprehension and faith in the Eucharist to that 70% proportion?

Homosexuality, woman priests, ect... arre a propagation of a bigger disease, and what better cure for evil is there than the Lord?

[Jaime]

Sadly folks seem more interested in discussing things that call for no personal action on their part than the crisis with the Eucharist.

[Didacus]

My friend (82 years old, priest) told me the biggest problem in the church is cathecism. He noted a survey that said 'amongst all religions in the world, the Catholic priest is the only that does not teach'. HE also told me that in 1986, when he met with JP the Great, the papa agreed with him that lack of cathecism is the biggest problem in the Church.

I think the lack of teaching is what causes the lack of understanding towards the Eucharist. And I think it is truly a lack of understanding, not a heresy for the most part of Catholics.

So which is the biggest problem? Is this like the chicken and the egg thing? Lack of teaching causes disbelief in the Eucharist or disbelief in the Eucharist causes the lack of belief?

[avemaria40]

[quote name='philothea' post='1012730' date='Jun 26 2006, 09:08 PM']
This is probably not especially charitable of me...

But I can't see how [i]any Catholic who has ever been to a mass[/i] can have failed to notice the general Church-wide belief in the real presence. Nevermind catechesis. I understood what was going on with the eucharist when I was a non-Christian, unbaptized 10 year old... by listening to the words of the mass! No one had explained anything to me, but it seemed pretty obvious from the words and actions.

So I don't buy the "badly catechized" excuse, unless some wayward teacher actually taught error. Sure that could happen... but 70%?
[/quote]

But some of those same "badly catechized" kids might never be encouraged to pay attention to Mass, if they even go at all. I know A LOT of Catholic friends who went through CCD but were never really raised in the Faith and have only gone to Mass for First Communion and Confirmation. Though as a twelve year old unbaptized non-Christian, I myself knew that the Eucharist was the Real Presence of Christ and was very dissapointed when I could not recieve at my aunt's wedding because I was not a Catholic, not even a Christian.

I guess it depends on the person but I think they would be guilty of material heresy and it is a lot worse than a person of another faith who at least adheres to all tenants of their faith.

[Sojourner]

OK, so unlike a lot of the other topics we discuss on this board, this is an area in which we could have a direct impact.

So what are some ways in which we could be involved in helping others in our parishes to understand the importance of the Eucharist, of the sacrament in which they partake every week?

Off the top, I'd say helping out with RCIA or with studies could be a start. Any other ideas?

[pyranima]

As a convert and one who likes to know EVERYTHING (though im sure i will die before i do), i think Cardinal Newman said it the best those who defect from the chruch the belief in the Eucharist is the first to go. God knows i would never argue that the Eucharist is not a symbol, but the question to ask is what kind of symbol is it? the best way to describe it is there are two kinds of symbols the first is an empty symbol and the second is a full symbol. an empty symbol is something that is only symbolic but holds no power over what it represents for example a stop sign tells a car to stop but cannot make it stop. but a full symbol pulls you into what it represents it is a symbol but it is more than symbolic a sea shell for example is a symbol of the beach. i realize its not a good example but you get what im trying to convey.
The "symbolic" meaning of the eucharist was brought in during the protestantizaion of Holy Mother Church by the liberals after Vatican II. Satan knows that at the heart of the Church is the Sacraments and the heart, the source the power of all the sacraments is that of the Holy Eucharist. it is difficult to find one who descent from the teaching of the church who hold fast to the belief of the real presence.

[toledo_jesus]

my understanding of heresy was that you have to formally reject it to be a heretic. If you've never been taught properly then the heresy lies with your instructors...buuuuut I'm a product of your typical CCD class so what do I know.

[MC Just]

I have a great Idea how about we "keep it catholic". Now a days we seem so focused with everything outside the church. We are not focusing enough on teaching our own people. No instead half of the catholics in the world turn to politics and liberalism. Never mind this retarted "spirit of vatican II" how about "spirit of Catholicism"..?

We are so busy telling budhists and muslims to "be better budhists and muslims". Basically saying we dont have the fulleness of truth anymore and people dont need it. The whole problem with people not believing in the eucharist lies in the fact that we are sliding out of Catholicism and into everything else. The Catholic Church was found in 33 AD. not 1965.

Edited July 5, 2006 by MC Just

[Jaime]

Toledo

Its true that a person may not be a formal heretic, but that does not change the fact that it is a heresy. Know what I mean?

[Franimus]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1013320' date='Jun 27 2006, 07:11 PM']
Well, I voted yes and more important. Although, like others have stated, I think that its largely ignorance and not deliberate rejection of Truth. Ignorance doesn't necessarily mean "not heretic", and I think thats the distinction Socrates made between formal and material heresy.
[/quote]
same here

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1017449' date='Jul 5 2006, 10:24 AM']
Toledo

Its true that a person may not be a formal heretic, but that does not change the fact that it is a heresy. Know what I mean?
[/quote]
si, claro.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1017449' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:24 AM']
Toledo

Its true that a person may not be a formal heretic, but that does not change the fact that it is a heresy. Know what I mean?
[/quote]

To this I fullheartedly agree.

To determine which individual is or is not a heretice would require a 'case by case' study would it not?