Traditional Roman Catholic Here

[Stranger]

Speculation is not heresy

Speculation is heresy. Which makes you quite the heretic.

Stranger

 

[MattO]

Speculation is heresy. Which makes you quite the heretic.

Stranger

It may be heresy but you are not necessarily culpable for it. Might you agree?

 

[Stranger]

It may be heresy but you are not necessarily culpable for it. Might you agree?

If you are the one speculating you are.

Stranger

 

[tooldtocare]

Huh?

I said:
Please,

google- "spitting on Christians" & then tell me who are doing the spitting?

And your response is-- "Huh?

I say Huh to you too lol

 

[GodsGrace]

Plus the person has to be corrected. If he/she persists in error after the fact then they would be guilty of heresy.

One could not help what he THINKS.
But if one teaches what he incorrectly thinks, then he is teaching a heresy.

The CCC goes so far as to say that if we cannot accept a doctrine then we should pray to be able to come to believe it. 2088 speaks to this...also another paragraph which does not come to mind right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

It says in scripture that a woman should cover her head in submission to her husband. If its in the Bible it is doctrine. Before Vatican II, you could walk into a Catholic Church and witness many women wearing head covers.

A head covering is a canon law. It is NOT doctrine.

Please see canon law 1262
1262.1
1262.2

Source: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/09/06/are-women-required-to-cover-their-heads-in-church/

sorry, I could not copy and paste...

 

[MattO]

If you are the one speculating you are.

Stranger

How do you figure? The way I see it is this...

One may speculate a heresy but in order to be culpable for it they have to have been shown that they are in the wrong first. Otherwise, speculating a heresy does not mean they should be punished for it.

 

[MattO]

One could not help what he THINKS.
But if one teaches what he incorrectly thinks, then he is teaching a heresy.

The CCC goes so far as to say that if we cannot accept a doctrine then we should pray to be able to come to believe it. 2088 speaks to this...also another paragraph which does not come to mind right now.

I'm not sure who would teach something that they seriously thought was incorrect. But, yes, if someone teaches something that is flawed then it would be heresy. Whether or not they are culpable for the sin is a whole new ball game. Its all about culpability.

 

[Stranger]

How do you figure? The way I see it is this...

One may speculate a heresy but in order to be culpable for it they have to have been shown that they are in the wrong first. Otherwise, speculating a heresy does not mean they should be punished for it.

That is too fine a line to draw to me. It all depends on what is being discussed of course. One can have an opinon of something in the Scripture that is not written in stone, such as the Gap theory. Whether one speculates on that is immaterial. It doesn't make one a heretic one way or the other.

But, if you are speculating on the Person of Jesus Christ, as to whether He is actually the Son of God or not, that is heresy. Or, if you speculate on God, as to whether or not He had a beginning or not, that is heresy.

Stranger

 

[MattO]

That is too fine a line to draw to me. It all depends on what is being discussed of course. One can have an opinon of something in the Scripture that is not written in stone, such as the Gap theory. Whether one speculates on that is immaterial. It doesn't make one a heretic one way or the other.

But, if you are speculating on the Person of Jesus Christ, as to whether He is actually the Son of God or not, that is heresy. Or, if you speculate on God, as to whether or not He had a beginning or not, that is heresy.

Stranger

I think that in order for someone to be culpable of the sin, in your later statement, they have to have read that or been told before so. Plus, say that one had learned that Christ is the Son of God in the past and later forgotten...then speculated on this matter...or even accidentally taught something contrary later down the road out of forgetfulness...I'm not sure if they would be culpable of the sin...I lean towards yes...but regardless, if they accept correction on the matter then they should not be punished (I think).

 

[Stranger]

I think that in order for someone to be culpable of the sin, in your later statement, they have to have read that or been told before so. Plus, say that one had learned that Christ is the Son of God in the past and later forgotten...then speculated on this matter...or even accidentally taught something contrary later down the road out of forgetfulness...I'm not sure if they would be culpable of the sin...I lean towards yes...but regardless, if they accept correction on the matter then they should not be punished (I think).

Without a doubt, God knows our heart in the matter whether we err by mistake or are erring intentionally, knowing what we are believing or teaching is contrary to God and Scripture. And God's punishment or discipline will certainly be based on what He knows.

The Church must have a standard of beliefs and faith, based on the Bible. And some of these must be to the degree that they must be believed in order for one to be Christian, and to teach other wise is to teach heresy. So the Church should act on that as the Church cannot read the heart as God can.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

I said:
Please,

google- "spitting on Christians" & then tell me who are doing the spitting?

And your response is-- "Huh?

I say Huh to you too lol

So what do orthodox jews spitting on Christians has to do with OP, hence my post ‘huh’

 

[tooldtocare]

So what do orthodox jews spitting on Christ has to do with OP, hence my post ‘huh’

The OP states---
Traditional Roman Catholic Here

I thought it might be of interest to Catholic's to know that Rabbi's in Israel routinely "SPIT" on Catholic's in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

If this does not concern you then just pass my comment on bye

 

[tooldtocare]

Please forgive me----

I did not realize that the topic---

"Traditional Roman Catholic Here"

Was under the topic

"Community Welcome Center"

My comments do not belong here,

My mistake, please forgive my

I will no longer post here even though I was Baptized in a Catholic Church when I was a baby

Take care

bye

 

[aspen]

I wouldn't doubt that those "Jews" are the Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi "jews" are not real jews. Traditionally, you had to be descended of one of the tribes of Israel to be considered a Jew. The Ashkenazi, who call themselves Semetic, are not really Semetic. Ashkenaz, in the Bible, was descended of Noah's son Japeth...not Shem (Semetic). Ashkenazi "jews" are worse than real Jews today for this very reason. The New Testament depicts those who call themselves jews but really aren't as coming from the Synagogue of Satan. They are an exceedingly wicked people. I recently read an article about an extremist real Jew who believed that the Ashkenazi should be killed.

Going back to World War II, The Ashkenazi (Hence the term Nazi) were the same group of "jews" whom Hitler and the Nazis were exterminating. But they did not begin to exterminate these people (originally the Nazis did not plan this) until the Americans joined the war 3 years into World War II. The exterminating of Ashkenazi was the Nazi response to the Americans joining the war, and I say this because the didn't start doing so until the very next day after the USA declared war on Germany.

I, as a believer, understand why it is that Hitler and the Nazis would have wanted these people dead. Could you imagine what it would be like if an exceedingly wicked people took over your economy and controlled the majority of jobs etc. etc. etc. The wicked influence that they would have over you and your people. It would cry for justice.

Today, these same people control our nations money supply. Why is it that they are allowed to do so? Probably because a bunch wicked non-believers thought it would be ok.

Great...another hater....goodbye, MattO

Ignore

 

[Philip James]

The Germans were able to figure these things out about the Ashkenazi prior to WW2. Why aren't the Americans able to do so today?

All christians should deplore the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis...

This is anti-semetic hate speech and has no place on this board or anywhere in a civilized society..

This post has been reported.

 

[MattO]

All christians should deplore the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis...

This is anti-semetic hate speech and has no place on this board or anywhere in a civilized society..

This post has been reported.

They are not real jews. Nor are they semetic.

How come you have nothing to say about post#92?

 

[epostle]

Fr. Gruner, founder of the "Fatima Crusader" was excommunicated a long time ago. He continues to publish similar crap as MattO
I am suspicious that MattO has been poisoned by the rebellious SSPX, Society of of St. Pius X, who claims no legitimate pope since then. The founder of this radical traditionalist cult, Archbishop Lefebre, has also been excommunicated for years of defiance. SSPX rejects all of Vatican II.
Traditionalists have a place in the Church, radical traditionalists are a big headache for the Church.
Teaching anti-Catholicism in the name of being a Catholic annoys me to no end. Don't be fooled.

 

[MattO]

Fr. Gruner, founder of the "Fatima Crusader" was excommunicated a long time ago. He continues to publish similar crap as MattO
I am suspicious that MattO has been poisoned by the rebellious SSPX, Society of of St. Pius X, who claims no legitimate pope since then. The founder of this radical traditionalist cult, Archbishop Lefebre, has also been excommunicated for years of defiance. SSPX rejects all of Vatican II.
Traditionalists have a place in the Church, radical traditionalists are a big headache for the Church.
Teaching anti-Catholicism in the name of being a Catholic annoys me to no end. Don't be fooled.

Have you ever considered that they are correct? What is your reasoning for saying that they are in the wrong?

 

[epostle]

Have you ever considered that they are correct? What is your reasoning for saying that they are in the wrong?

My reasoning is that Pope John Paul II, with a heavy heart, excommunicated Archbishop Lefebre, . His reasoning is more correct then yours or mine. Reunification with the SSPX is a difficult struggle for the Church, but it seems to me the SSPX are not cooperative.

I have written extensively on Fr. Gruner in Catholic Answers Forum, but that was 10 years ago. He has been excommunicated. He is an apostate. He operates his printing company without dicastery and pumps out literature by the trainload. He thinks he knows more about Fatima than Sr. Lucia. Interviews with Sr. Lucia about Fr. Gruner are available on line. I know where he lives, I grew up on the same street. His "apostolate" is a deception, because he pretends to be Catholic but in fact, is in rebellion.