Speculation is not heresy
Speculation is heresy. Which makes you quite the heretic.
Stranger
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Speculation is not heresy
It may be heresy but you are not necessarily culpable for it. Might you agree?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?
Huh?
One could not help what he THINKS.Plus the person has to be corrected. If he/she persists in error after the fact then they would be guilty of heresy.
A head covering is a canon law. It is NOT doctrine.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.
How do you figure? The way I see it is this...If you are the one speculating you are.
Stranger
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.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.
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.
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).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).
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 Christ has to do with OP, hence my post ‘huh’
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.
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?
They are not real jews. Nor are they semetic.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.
Have you ever considered that they are correct? What is your reasoning for saying that they are in the wrong?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.
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.Have you ever considered that they are correct? What is your reasoning for saying that they are in the wrong?