Faith Questions

[dj808]

Rabbi David Wolpe is a renaissance man and this little book on Why Faith Matters is filled with thoughtful quotes, stories, and erudition on the topic of faith. I’ve made a couple reading selections from it and hope it will encourage you to find the book and read it. For even if you have faith, as a Christian you will interact with many who do not and it is important to know what you may have missed.

Hope you enjoy it.

dj

[edited for content - administrator]

[Shin]

Rabbi David Wolpe is a renaissance man and this little book on Why Faith Matters is filled with thoughtful quotes, stories, and erudition on the topic of faith. I’ve made a couple reading selections from it and hope it will encourage you to find the book and read it. For even if you have faith, as a Christian you will interact with many who do not and it is important to know what you may have missed.

A first selection you can find here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/01/25/faith-questions/

Hope you enjoy it.

dj

Hasn't Wolpe been on 'Religion on the Line'? I've only heard it a few times but it's on my main radio station WABC. I believe I've read some of his stuff on the Jewish World Review.

Conservative Jews in America are [I don't mean the denomination] somewhat rare but it's often quite pleasing to hear them speak out for the pro-life cause, and on other issues -- all the more so because it's such a happy surprise when you see it. Mark Levin for example, I will listen to regularly.

On the other hand when you read about Israel, it can often be not as pleasing to see the right-wing because then, rather than greater agreement on some of the natural law issues, the religious friction truly plays out in property rights fights, worship issues, and so on.

[Bailey2]

I was reading something on the other forum today and didn't want to show my stupidity there... so I'll show it here.   
Can someone explain to me the difference between schismatic vs heretic and valid vs illicit.
thanks

[Shin]

I will try to give a good answer, I do not myself understand some of these issues as well as I wish to.

Valid is usually used when discussing the efficacy of a sacrament. If it is valid, it is efficacious, if it is invalid, it is void. Licit and illicit is whether or not the sacrament is by the law of the Church permitted to be celebrated, correctly celebrated, or if there is a practice within the sacrament which while it does not invalidate it, is against Church law.

Sometimes being illicit also invalidates a sacrament, sometimes it doesn't. For example, all marriages by Catholics outside the Church are invalid and illicit, so there is no sacrament. But, baptism, is only illicit but still valid. I.e. still sacramental.

It is illicit to change the words of the mass to those which are your own preference, to add or subtract to it, your own personal innovations, save where the Church expressly permits freedom, such as in sermons, which still have their guidelines one must remain within. However, every illicit change does not mean the mass itself is invalid, only illicit.

Validity and licitness are very important both, naturally, because you want to know whether the grace of the sacraments is there or not in a particular case. Great concern for example, over the validity of Eucharistic consecrations occurs when priests begin to engage in many illicit practices, because it is feared that they will cross the line into that which invalidates the sacrament as well.

All deliberately illicit practices are sinful -- the law provides for cases where the law may not be followed, of necessity, so, there is never a case of necessary disobedience that is sinful, only unnecessary.

The sinfulness of a minister in and of itself doesn't make any sacrament invalid, it only depends on whether the sin is specific to that which causes validity or not of the sacrament. So a mortally sinning priest may illicitly celebrate the Eucharist without having gone to Confession, but still have the Eucharist be valid, and so beneficial for all those receiving not in mortal sin.

Schismatic believes what the Church believes, but refuses to obey the Church's authority anyway, such as a legitimate order from Pope or Bishop. Usually the schismatic justifies this disobedience with a cooked excuse. As a rule, schismatics eventually become heretics.

Heretic doesn't believe something the Church believes and teaches, such as the Immaculate Conception, etc. Formal and material distinctions are made here. A material heretic is someone who doesn't believe something simply because he doesn't know it is required belief, formal means he knows and rejects this.

The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way: "The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material." or "On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed"."

"Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity — as distinct from wanton opposition — supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create "good faith". Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the mind and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience."

"Heresy differs from apostasy. The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical."

St. Isidore of Seville, Doctor of the Church wrote some wonderful books full of Etymologies, that is word origins and their meanings. He says that 'heresy' is actually from the Greek word meaning 'choice'. But Faith as a supernatural virtue requires complete belief in all the Church's teachings -- once a single choice is made to disbelieve, rather than trust, the supernatural grace of faith in Christ's revelation dies in a person, and is lost - it is then only a person's decisions which determine truth or not to that person, rather than faith. So St. Isidore says, 'But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not. . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema.'

This all makes me think back to Adam and Eve and the apple.

The supernatural grace of faith is incredibly important, which is why the Church has many prayers called 'Acts of Faith' and why we pray for strengthening of our faith. With it, we are trusting in God, without it, we are trusting in ourselves.

[Brigid]

I was reading something on the other forum today and didn't want to show my stupidity there... so I'll show it here.   
Can someone explain to me the difference between schismatic vs heretic and valid vs illicit.
thanks

Also, just to make sure it's clearer, two people who are baptized and are non-Catholics - their marriage is presumed valid, unless a tribunal finds it otherwise (yes, Protestants can use a Catholic tribunal, too, but only do when in RCIA, usually). It is a Sacrament (in many Protestant churches even tho' it's not often recognized as such) as long as the two were both baptized. If one or both are not baptized it is considered a natural marriage, only, and not a Sacrament.

[Bailey2]

OK, let me see if I got this simplistically: validity is whether or not it "works."   illicit is whether or not it is "right."   So when something is illicit but valid, such as a priest in mortal sin consecrates the bread and wine, it is done "wrong" but it still "works" (ie. Jesus comes).

Schismatic is knowing but not obeying (like a two year old stomping his or her foot)
A heretic simply does not believe or does not know in order to believe..... but in the second case, the heresy is more questionable especially if the intent to believe is there.

Is that right?  boy am I glad I didn't choose to study apologetics and theology.   I like psychology and brain research much much better!  

Manana.......

[Shin]

OK, let me see if I got this simplistically: validity is whether or not it "works."   illicit is whether or not it is "right."   So when something is illicit but valid, such as a priest in mortal sin consecrates the bread and wine, it is done "wrong" but it still "works" (ie. Jesus comes).

Schismatic is knowing but not obeying (like a two year old stomping his or her foot)
A heretic simply does not believe or does not know in order to believe..... but in the second case, the heresy is more questionable especially if the intent to believe is there.

Is that right?  boy am I glad I didn't choose to study apologetics and theology.   I like psychology and brain research much much better!  

Manana.......

lol. Yes, that sums it up rather well I think.

[Patricia]

Bailey, you bring a smile to my life everytime I read something you write

[Brigid]

OK, let me see if I got this simplistically: validity is whether or not it "works."   illicit is whether or not it is "right."   So when something is illicit but valid, such as a priest in mortal sin consecrates the bread and wine, it is done "wrong" but it still "works" (ie. Jesus comes).

Schismatic is knowing but not obeying (like a two year old stomping his or her foot)
A heretic simply does not believe or does not know in order to believe..... but in the second case, the heresy is more questionable especially if the intent to believe is there.

Is that right?  boy am I glad I didn't choose to study apologetics and theology.   I like psychology and brain research much much better!  

Manana.......

Yup. That's it. (I prefer to think of Grace being supplied, rather than "it works" but you've got it.)

[Bailey2]

Bailey, you bring a smile to my life everytime I read something you write

thank you; I hope you are doing OK.