THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Last Friday, I wrote about the teachings of the Sacred Heart, where it came from, and why you often see Catholics go to Mass the first Friday of every month. In addition, I went into one of the groups that greatly injure the Sacred Heart, so this post I'm going into the second group:
I wondered how to best present heretics and what they say, but the more I looked into heretical thought, the more I realized how prevalent heresy is and how often we hear them without even realizing it.
So, with that in mind, we're going to look at a total of 12 heretical teachings, six now and six a little later. Here are the first 6heretical teachings prevalent in society today, what each says, what the modern promoter of it says, and why it's so dangerous.
#12: Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons
These two are at the bottom because one can choose whether or not they want to be members of their "church"; however, I have never seen any other universal agreement between Catholics and non-Catholics concerning a condemnation of groups. There is no pastor or priest or anyone familiar with Christian teachings that will say a JW or a Mormon is a real Christian; I mean that not in how they act but rather what their "church" teaches.
I won't go into every single teaching so instead I'll point out one teaching from each that disqualifies them as real Christians:
JW's believe Jesus is actually the archangel Michael.
Mormons believe that if they are good enough in this life, they can become gods in the next life; they even have a saying: "as man is, God once was. As God is, man can become."
They can deny it all they want, but they have published works with their own seal of approval that shows this is what they actually believe.
(Trust me: I'm doing a list of what the strangest beliefs of Mormonism are just in time for their Pioneer Day, July 24th.)
But why are such teachings dangerous? Because they show you can make things up, lie about it, know it's a lie, but promote it as fact anyway.
Named after a Jesuit priest named Leonard Edward Feeney, Feeneyism takes the valid Catholic teaching extra Ecclesiam null salus ("outside the church there is no salvation) and takes it to extremes by stating non-Catholics by the simple fact they're non-Catholics are automatically damned.
Why is this dangerous? Because it takes the notion of damnation and leaves it up to individuals to decide who is damned. Contrary to what some people think, not even the Catholic Church has ever declared someone is in hell.
What does today's Feeneyist says? "I decide for myself who goes to hell."
This teaches that good and evil are equally powerful and that material things are evil. I know that sounds contrary, because it is. The notion is self-defeating: you can't say in one breath that good and evil are equally powerful then say in the next breath material things are evil without saying the non-material is either good or evil.
And that's what makes it so dangerous: it blurs the line between good and evil while at the same time making no distinction in either moral neutrality or material/spiritual matters.
What does the modern Manichaeism promoter say? Anything related to the prosperity gospel.
This teaches that God as expressed in the OT is a different and lesser entity than the God in the NT.
Now, Christians today would most likely hear this and scratch their heads trying to understand it, but back when it was first proposed, its namesake Marcion of Sinope argued that what he called the "vengeful and tyrannical" God of the OT cannot be reconciled with Jesus' teachings and thus cannot be the true God.
(Sidenote: calling God in the OT "vengeful and tyrannical"….sound familiar?)
Why is this such a dangerous idea? Besides the fact Marcionism also has roots in mystic, dualistic pseudo-theology, it suggests that the OT shouldn't even be used for much of anything in trying to understand God.
What does the modern Marcionist say? "God shouldn't be worshiped since God promotes slavery in the OT."
Pelagianism teaches original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. I think the problem with this is pretty obvious: every single time a person, or a society has tried to come up with right and wrong by themselves without God, it has always failed…..no exceptions.
What does the modern Pelagianist say? "I can be good without God."
I decided to put these two together because they are two sides of the same heretical coin. Gallicanism teaches that civil authority--be it president or monarch--is on the same tier as the Pope; Americanism says among other things that there must be a strict separation of church and state.
Why are these ideas so dangerous? In the first, you're saying the government has as much authority to decide right and wrong as a church does; in the second, it says out of all the basis for morality people can use, religion must not be used at any point.
Today, whenever someone thinks a solution should come first and foremost from the government or when someone says there's a wall of separation of church and state, they're touting one of these two.
Stay tuned in for the next six…the six most prevalent heresies out there!!!