(Ron) Borgia to Ron

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

CREA
Rewriting the Catechism again, Ron?  My copy defines heresy 
somewhat differently than you do.  It says  [at #2089]:

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which 
must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an 
obstinate concerning the same"


CREA
I can find nothing in this definition which would require a heretic 
to be one who "... KNOWINGLY misdirects the faithful in matters of 
docrine".  A simple, but stubborn, belief at variance with the teachings 
of "Holy Mother Church" was quite enough to result in the excommunication of the
"sinner", and after the time of Innocent III, 
could (and often did) result in execution at the hands of the secular authorities (as
formalized into canon law at the Lateran Council in 
1215) for the "crime" of heresy -- a view which was rapidly codified 
in civil law (just five years later) by Frederick II, the "Holy Roman 
Emperor".  

RON
  I won't quibble with the Catechism over the definition. I don't see 
how my definition differs in intent. The point I am making is that a 
"heretic" knowingly goes against Church teaching. Is obstinate about it. 
If a pope did this it would obviously misdirect people. A heretic KNOWS 
he is going against Church teaching.
  Now, accepting fully the definition of the Catechism, where did Borgia 
"obstianately deny" a truth which must be believed with Catholic faith? 
Or will you admit that Borgia, for all his faults, was not a "heretic"?

• Previous message: (Ron) Borgia to Ron
• Next message: (Ron) Borgia to Ron
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]