The Mission of Heresy



All those who attack the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church have a mission:

Do you know to what God has preordained you and your helpers? You have a special assignment. Your task is to increase the preaching of the truth, of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In your negativity you have an eminent positive mission. Does it sound arrogant?

Tertullianus (saeculum II) explains that God PROVIDES heretics and controversies (with the needed apologists) so that the true faith of the Church may grow in the direction willed by God. The heretics provoke a more ample circulation of the revelation, of the creed and the truth of the Gospel (Adv. Marcionem 4.5.2-4; Praescr. 12, 4-5.).

Concerning the protestant reformation Saint Petrus Canisius who almost single-handed saved Germany from becoming wholly protestant saw a profound reason: "The reformation happened because the Germans wanted to become devout again".

Before we begin to argue let’s put away some of heresy’s maneuvers. They are very impressive but they are like fireworks. Much noise and then there remains only burnt papers and a smell of burned powder, nothing more.

Please, distorting something and then telling it’s ridiculous is a time-honored ploy but it sure doesn’t help in the debate. That’s why at the festivals people go to see themselves in the mirrors to be able to laugh at themselves. But it provides not the real picture.

Neither does the accusation of RC arrogance. Bringing up again and again an argument that has not been countered yet is no arrogance.

And oh the scorn concerning the fact that members of the RC Church have committed many sins. The argument of discovering somebody is less than perfect doesn’t mean he’s telling a lie. The greatest sinner on earth can tell the truth and the most perfect person may err.

One of heresy’s argument is that being perfect is the same as teaching the truth: "Just because you can trace your history back farther than Protestants doesn’t make you perfect, doesn’t make you superior. If the Catholic Church were so perfect, the Reformation would have never taken place". You are right and wrong at the same time.

Right regarding the moral stance. There have been many crimes in the name of the Church. You need to read only the prayer of John Paul II asking forgiveness for the Church member’s sins.

But look at the reformation or what is called inappropriately the counter-reformation. The RC Church became a better Church thanks to Martin Luther. In Germany awaiting the visit of John Paul II some Lutherans said: "Why can’t he canonize Martin Luther, i. e. declare him a saint?" Imagine the Protestants praying to Saint Martin Luther! The Pope told them why. Instead of remaining in the Church and fight it out he erred in founding a new church. But he was cause of a better Catholic Church.

Heresy is wrong in implying that because members of the Church are sinners they teach errors. Not even the Borgia monster taught heresies, not ever!

I have a story for this too. At Paris a Jew wanted to convert to Catholicism. He told the parish priest: "Before being baptized I want to visit Rome the heart of the Church". The cleric begged him: "Don’t go. You will lose your faith". But the catechumen was adamant. After three month he came back and asked to be baptized. The priest asked him: "But didn’t you see all the frivolities and even crimes committed by the Pope and the cardinals?" "Sure I did". "You didn’t lose your faith?" "No, I think if the Pope and the cardinals can’t destroy the Church it must be the Church of God

Do you remember how Martin Luther at the diet’s public discussion run out of arguments against Tetzel and simply said: "Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders – here I stand, I cannot (do or think) differently"?

It was tragic that the opposing theologies were the abstract Thomism and the intuitive Augustinism. God willed it so. As says St. Teresa de Avila: "God writes straight on crooked lines". The Church had a liturgical, biblical and patristic movement of renewal because of Martin Luther.

The financing by Rockefeller and other International Enterprises of the sects’ assault against Latin America’s Catholic Church has shaken up the Catholics. The Catholics are now knocking on the doors and announcing the kerygma. Thank you Mr. Rockefeller!

Now let me talk about the arrogance of Catholics regarding the Tradition. Don’t mistake certitude, sureness, conviction, certainty, confidence and conviction for arrogance.

We are proud to stand in an uninterrupted tradition of 2000 years. We don’t have to jump the abysm of 1500 years with the stick of the personal inspiration. If you look at the theological panorama more and more Protestants are looking at the Fathers of the Church.

I think that we have reached the critical point. All tenets of the catalogue of "I disagree" boil down to this: Tradition.

By the way very frequently heresy’s tenets are either misunderstandings or caricatures. Rightly presented they are the consequence of our uninterrupted faith. So the problem and burden of prove is heresy’s. You have to prove that the Roman Catholic Church errs in her uninterrupted doctrine.

I dare heresy to take up this point but with real arguments!

Who is heretic? All those who do not accept the whole Catholic doctrine. ( Louw Nidda: 33.241 ai{resi"b, ew" f: the content of teaching which is not true - ‘false teaching, untrue doctrine, heresy.’ oi{tine" pareisavxousin aiJrevsei" ajpwleiva" ‘they will bring in false teachings which are destructive’ 2 Pe 2.1. )




PD. Calling somebody "heretic" is not a moral judgment. It is not about good or bad. It is about true and false, right or wrong.



pablo77 gave this response on 8/2/2000:

OUCH! Sounds like someone is angry!

I have a few observations I'd like to make here. First, you said "Instead of remaining in the Church and fight it out he erred in founding a new church. But he was cause of a better Catholic Church. But he was cause of a better Catholic Church."


Martin Luther WANTED to remain in the Catholic church but he was excommunicated. I believe that a matter of public record. As for being the cause of a better Catholic church, some might point out that the Protestant church is in fact this "better church". Ignatius Loyola's contributions as a result of the Reformation are highly esteemed by some, and denounced by others (including Catholics), especially his spiritual disciplines and his Jesuit order, but these caused quite the tumult in the Catholic church, didn't they?


Then you stated that "We are proud to stand in an uninterrupted tradition of 2000 years."


"You have to prove that the Roman Catholic Church errs in her uninterrupted doctrine."

Do you guys still sell indulgences? Indulgences were the reason Martin Luther protested, right? So if you DON'T still sell indulgences, might we then conclude that the Catholic church "tradition" isn't uninterrupted? Oh, and did Jesus ever sell indulgences? I think Catholics should address these questions if they wish to promote the notion of uninterrupted tradition.

And then you said "Who is heretic? All those who do not accept the whole Catholic doctrine".

Would that include the Vatican II document which calls Protestants the brethren of Catholics? Funny how the Vatican changed its mind on this subject over the past 500 years. I guess it just makes the case for "uninterrupted tradition" that much more difficult to prove.

May God bless you.




Angry? No. I have given our separated brothers a rare insight of what they are doing. I am sorry if the word "heretic" sounds as if I am attacking somebody. I tried to explain that it is about true or false. The Catholic Church has suffered abuse beginning from the Nestorians up to the new age witch crafters today. Nothing new under the sun. So this post tries to explain patiently what the Catholics believe.

The supposition of my message is clear: nothing happens without the permission of God. Even the devil is God’s employee. Additionally that you can understand that the Catholic Church assumes that the tenets hold for centuries are God’s truth. From the Synagogue up to the new Churches of modern origin we try to have a dialogue. But you can’t expect to accept everything on face value, do you?

Now if two persons talk about the same subject matter and make opposite affirmation one of them has to be mistaken. (Now theoretically both could be wrong. But probability is against this possibility).

Martin Luther wanted to remain in the Catholic Church on the condition that there should be no Pope, nor bishop. Do you know that the Council of Trent tried to have a dialogue initially? But the conditions of the other part would have meant that the Catholic Church renounces essentials. That was not possible.

Regarding the Protestant church being the "better church" I hope you don’t bring up in an other jacket the argument that necessarily perfection is the guarantee of truth! I grant you if you want that Protestants are better people than Catholics if you say so. I don’t know. But this is not the problem. On an objective level: throwing overboard 5 sacraments, the complete liturgy, Tradition and Magisterium made it possible that in the same Protestant Church some decry homosexual unions as an abomination against God’s will and others defend it as a tenet of modern faith. I could make you a list of these problems.

Regarding the Jesuits you should study a little history. Every time the Spirit gave His Church a new charisma there have been problems. Remember the case of the mendicant orders (Franciscans and Dominicans). The establishment wanted to excommunicate a Saint Thomas or Buenaventura. The same happened with the Jesuits. In order to be more at the service in the Church they let aside the daily recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours. Today you should read what is said about the Opus Dei organization. New structures do not enter easily in the traditional structures. This has been the same problem for almost all new charismas. Do you know who defended in each case the new charismas? It was the Pope. You can object that the Pope dissolved the Jesuits. Let’s not get distracted by this. They were reinstated. The founder of my society of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart was forcibly carried out of his house and thrown into the street. It is almost a sign of authenticity. But you will find that in every case it is a problem of structures, ways of doing things but never about doctrine. Structure’s changes are very hard to take. Thank God the Holy Ghost never let’s His Church becoming bourgeois. These kinds of tumults are very healthy.

You remark concerning indulgences is yet an other jacket you put on. "You sinned so you are wrong in doctrine". Let me offer a comparison. We are talking about the color of a flower. I say it is red. You have affirmed that it is blue. Then you argue: "Are you continuing the killing of butterflies?" What does it say about the color? Nothing. It says only something about the attitude regarding butterflies!

Perhaps you understand better the incongruence of your remark if I ask you: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you are innocent you can’t answer "yes" or "no". Both would be false. I mean it in the case you don’t beat your wife! Or do you? Don’t you feel that in this case I am presenting insulting questions, which not only are unwarranted but also are against charity? You have to suppose the best until you get contrary prove. Even in this case you have to find excuses. The question about Jesus’ selling indulgences is somewhat like that. Don’t you feel a little bit ashamed brother?

I don’t get the trend of your last observation regarding the Vatican II calling Protestants brethren. I am asking forgiveness if anybody Catholic has called you with a different name. But name-calling isn’t doctrine. It is a bad behavior. I remember a homily of Saint Augustine. In his time the Donatists had separated themselves from the Church and condemned her to hell. They had a temple near the place where Augustine was celebrating Eucharist and one could hear the noise of the Donatist's celebration. Saint Augustine said: "If you want it or not you are our brethren". Again, name-calling is not expression of doctrine but of venom.

Your arguments boil down to different jackets you put on to argue: "Your are sinners. Consequently you teach false doctrine". Not so. I give you tidbit of information in this direction. In the 10th century a lady almighty in Rome elected and deposed the Popes. When her son she had connived to be Pope didn’t do her will she had him put into jail. Even in these "dark ages" there has been no false doctrine.

May God bless you too.



Dear Gerardo,

Or should we now be calling you Don Quixote de la Mancha?


I am puzzled at who this "Anonymous Revealed" is. I would commend relativism here. What is obvious to you is not as obvious to the rest of us.

From your papers you seem to be under the impression that the anonymous questions on the forum are from a single windmill of your own invention and you are now proceeding to tilt at it like the hero of old.

I was fascinated at your use of Tertullian in relation to "Heretics" when Tertullian was referring to the Scripture at 1 Corinthians 11:19. For there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. One is left with the impression you quoted Tertullian to draw attention away from the fact that is it that approval is of God and not from the Church tradition.

In fact you now define heresy as a deviation from Roman Catholic Doctrine when it was the original source of the heresy. To suggest that the burden of proof is on people to prove that the Roman Catholic Church errs in its tradition of uninterrupted doctrine is an insult to the intelligence of any Church scholar. You know that the Church evolved its own doctrine and that it claims the authority to do so. Look at La Cugna’s God For Us. It proclaims the transition and from one of your own theologians in the US.

There is no burden of proof on the Church of God or any one who seeks to follow the Bible alone. We do what the original church did under Christ and the Apostles. We deny your right to change that and we have always denied your right to change. The burden of proof is on you.

When you could not persuade my predecessors in 1179 you had them condemned at the Third Lateran Council and from the Council of Genoa you had our people delivered in chains and burnt and you have been killing those who disagree with you ever since until this very day.

What I find both amusing and disturbing about your post is that you seem to base your assumption regarding the multitude of anonymous questioners here as being from one source in order to confine the genuine questions and disquiet of what are apparent to me as many concerned and intelligent questioners trying to get to the truth of a large number of issues.

I do not blame them in the slightest for asking their questions anonymously as from the comments and behavior of the Roman Catholics on this forum and from a look at your history no one who knew anything about you would run the risk of subjecting themselves to this scurrilous libel and innuendo.

Even one of your own posts incites people to harass anyone who asks me a question if their names are supplied and simply downgrade the marks if they are not.

This mindset is homicidal. It is indicative of the intelligence gathering of the confessional and the abuse of power for which the Inquisitions and the Holocaust were infamous.

I only hope that people are not put off from asking further question by this display of intimidation.

Certainly no logical thinker could assume that the term anonymous covered just one straw man you have set up.

I hope they continue to ask the hard questions and if they do it any other way I would be surprised given your behavior here.

Certainly I will welcome anonymous questions and I will intimidate no one.

You really need to look at the example you are setting your own people. However, I suspect it is being foisted on you by the more emotive on this forum.

It is written: thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.





Some observations.

Your answer had five stars already when I saw it.

Thanks for helping me to know myself better: I'm homicidal.

There are some bad apples even in the Catholic Church. Those in favor of abortion have left.

I repeat I am not in favor that non-Catholics leave this board, not even you! There for the grace of God go I.

The original church is not so original.



logmeon gave this follow-up answer on 8/6/2000:

Obviously someone agrees with what I said. No doubt more will do so and mark me accordingly. I have no control over who marks what on this forum as you well know.



mscperu asked this follow-up question on 8/7/2000:

Members of your congregation surf the internet?



logmeon gave this response on 8/7/2000:

So what?

Like your site there is a direct link from the church site to People are free to exercise their opinions. Why try to make imputations from the fact. You were the one urging people to mark me down. I have said nothing on the matter here other than to answer you.







 Where come these questions from?