A question of combined beliefs

[CMatt25]

Are we discussing the sacrament of baptism? or are we discussing a Catholic baptism does not and cannot combine two seperate communions to be one.

I think perhaps what you’re missing is simply that the UU RC considers himself a UU RC because he is a UU and also a baptized Catholic of the Latin rite. I don’t think anyone is suggesting he is a faithfully practicing Catholic in full communion. Not even the UU RC is suggesting he is. He simply desires to hold onto some practices of the faith he was baptized in but not to faithfully follow all. In some circles some would choose to describe such a Catholic as a CINO. It’s done all the time here on CAF to Catholics who do not practice in faithful communion. He simply chooses to refer to himself as a UU RC. I don’t think there’s much more to it than that.

 

[Sufjon]

The universe began and it will end. It is not cyclical. (According to the scientific consensus of physicists.) Life arose, evolved; humanity was created, and given this physical life in this body as the only life before the resurrection. We get two lives: one finite, on earth, and one eternal, in Heaven or Hell.

If one wants to count purgatory as an “intermediate state” and a different life than heaven, I suppose some of us get three.

That would be a good theory of there was but one universe. It is more likely that we live in a multi-universe, and the process of birth and death of universes is cyclical. Life arises and changes continually. As for what we are, we are beyond physical form, and timeless. The laws of creation and dissolution do not apply to what we are. The illusion you are talking about insofar as your body being the sum total pf what you are is the illusion that causes all sin, meaning that original sin is simply ignorance of what we are.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CMatt25;9062858] I’m just not certain the passages you presented translate into the children being able to comprehend fully the aspects of faith we previously had under discussion until they are older.

The passages reveal an action of obedience “yes” to God, this obedience does not stem from understanding but comes from “Faith” trusting in God, just as Abraham’s faith was met with incomprehensible circumstances, yet Abraham believed and acted in “Faith”.

In short “Faith” supersedes understanding.

And I was merely discussing what Steve stated in that anyone such as our UU RC if he truly knew, would “remain”. But you’ve explained this is debatable. So thank you for that as I agree it is debatable. Our UU RC or if not him, someone else who did not “remain”, may have come to believe and know at some point. But then later perhaps had a change in what they believe. God bless and peace.

I agree with Steve and am confident, “if the UU member understood his Catholic faith and practiced his faith, he would not have left?” What is debatable is the UU members disposition, understanding of his Catholic faith and practices, never the Catholic Faith itself, because these are founded upon Rock and do not change or cannot be moved.

For those Catholics who are learned and possess the faculties of understanding and practicing the Cathoilc faith and then reject them as false, can lead themselves into utter desctruction, but so long as this person lives, still has access to the Father by his baptism, if the learned Catholic who rejects his faith repents.

This rule does not apply to the UU member, because he appears to be picking Catholic traditions over Catholic doctrinal faith. Taking the “traditional” ashes on Ash Wed. is not the same as going to a divine revealed "doctrinal"sacramental confession of repentance.

In conclusion the UU member cannot practice his Catholic faith as a UU member, because there is no one UU member who possesses the faculties to administer, instruct and distribute the divine mysteries for the UU member to practice in faith. For the UU member to practice Catholic “traditions” as a UU member never makes him a Roman Catholic.

Peace be with you

 

[CMatt25]

For the UU member to practice Catholic “traditions” as a UU member never makes him a Roman Catholic.

Peace be with you

No of course not. Anyone can practice Catholic “traditions” and it does not necessarily mean they are Roman Catholic. But for those baptized into the faith, their Baptism makes them Catholic according to the Church. And many are baptized into the Church according to the Roman or Latin rite. Albeit perhaps they are non practicing or unfaithful. I have given a bishop’s explanation of this to me as well as that of other Catholics. And we are merely going in circles now. So this will be the last thing I have to say on the topic on this thread. In any case, peace be with you as well.

 

[peace2u2]

The difference is; Baptism in the Catholic Church is a sacrament. This seal From God not man, can never be removed. The Church never has the power to "put asunder what God has joined together.

If he rejects Catholic doctrine, he excommunicates himself.

Everything that you said is Truth and well said. I haven’t read through all the posts, but note what I have read about Baptism that not only it cannot be removed, BAPTISM CANNOT BE REPEATED!

Baptism is an indelible mark.

He who rejects the Church that Jesus established, rejects Jesus.

Pray for the lost sheep to return to the fold.

Praise God and Peace.

 

[rinnie]

Recently, I had a discussion with another Unitarian Universalist who was a Roman Catholic.

Lent is apparently a time when he sometimes wishes for some of the ritual that he grew up with - although he is quick to point out that he doesn’t desire to return to being Catholic.

But he did say he liked the idea of observing lent, getting ashes on Ash Wednesday, and conducting a bit of self examination.

Anyway, long story short, he considers himself a Unitarian Universalist Roman Catholic, and says there are still some aspects of Catholicism that he practices, such as the ash service.

For Unitarian Universalists, the concept of being a Unitarian Universalist Roman Catholic would be acceptable, although a tad unusual. We have members who are UU Wicdans, UU Jews, UU Deists, etc.

So, the question that popped into my mind, and which I asked this gentleman, was how the Roman Catholic Church woudl view such a union of belief systems.

He didn’t think the Catholic hierachy would be amenable to such a linkage, but wasn’t sure how lay Catholics would respond.

So, lay Catholics, what do you think.

Peace,

Seeker

I think they would have pretty much the same opinion as the Church would. In the RCC you are either hot or cold. There is no lukewarm. Just as Jesus commanded us.

If they didn’t have that same opinion I would probally worry.

 

[Leegal]

The difference is; Baptism in the Catholic Church is a sacrament. This seal From God not man, can never be removed. The Church never has the power to "put asunder what God has joined together.

A Baptized Catholic who leaves his communion with the body of Christ, to join another such as the UU is a whole other matter that deals with the disposition of the prodigal member.

If he rejects Catholic doctrine, he excommunicates himself.

Yes, it’s Apostasy. And it can be an excommunication latae sententia – automatic. Culpability may be mitigated by the fact that he does not know that he’s an apostate or that it’s an excommunicable offense – but it’s a grave matter nonetheless – but reconcilable if he were to choose to reconcile.

To the OP, I’m sorry for your friend. We do not get to pick and choose what we like about the Church and that which we don’t like.

 

[CMatt25]

Gabriel of 12;9051689:

The difference is; Baptism in the Catholic Church is a sacrament. This seal From God not man, can never be removed. The Church never has the power to "put asunder what God has joined together.

If he rejects Catholic doctrine, he excommunicates himself.

/QUOTE]

Which would mean he’s an excommunicated Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And can not receive any further Sacraments or hold a parish role short of reconciliation and the excommunication being lifted. I know some faithful Catholics on CAF want to make it appear a Baptized Catholic is not a Catholic if they are not following and espousing teachings. And I fully understand they speak in regard to practice. But that simply is not the case when dealing with labels at least according to the Church from what I’ve been told by a bishop and by others here.

Sorry I know I said I was done responding to posts on this thread but I had to just quickly clarify this new one.

 

[CMatt25]

Gabriel of 12;9051689:

The difference is; Baptism in the Catholic Church is a sacrament. This seal From God not man, can never be removed. The Church never has the power to "put asunder what God has joined together.

If he rejects Catholic doctrine, he excommunicates himself.

Everything that you said is Truth and well said. I haven’t read through all the posts, but note what I have read about Baptism that not only it cannot be removed, BAPTISM CANNOT BE REPEATED!

Baptism is an indelible mark.

He who rejects the Church that Jesus established, rejects Jesus.

Pray for the lost sheep to return to the fold.

Praise God and Peace.

Which would mean he’s an excommunicated Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And can not receive any further Sacraments or hold a parish role short of reconciliation and the excommunication being lifted. I know some faithful Catholics on CAF want to make it appear a Baptized Catholic is not a Catholic if they are not following and espousing teachings. And I fully understand they speak in regard to practice. But that simply is not the case when dealing with labels at least according to the Church from what I’ve been told by a bishop and by others here.

It’s called “Catholics Come Home” for a reason. Because they are Catholics at least in the eyes of the Church.

Would you guys be happier if Seeker’s friend in the OP referred to himself as a UU NP RC?

Sorry I know I said I was done responding to posts on this thread but I had to just quickly clarify this new one.

 

[Luvtosew]

peace2u2;9064173:

Which would mean he’s an excommunicated Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And can not receive any further Sacraments or hold a parish role short of reconciliation and the excommunication being lifted. I know some faithful Catholics on CAF want to make it appear a Baptized Catholic is not a Catholic if they are not following and espousing teachings. And I fully understand they speak in regard to practice. But that simply is not the case when dealing with labels at least according to the Church from what I’ve been told by a bishop and by others here.

It’s called “Catholics Come Home” for a reason. Because they are Catholics at least in the eyes of the Church.

Sorry I know I said I was done responding to posts on this thread but I had to just quickly clarify this new one.

Yes but does the RCC know hes excommunicated? I husband is boycotting a store now, and I said does the store know?

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt25;9064359:

Yes but does the RCC know hes excommunicated? I husband is boycotting a store now, and I said does the store know?

A good pt too

 

[Khalid]

That would be a good theory of there was but one universe. It is more likely that we live in a multi-universe, and the process of birth and death of universes is cyclical. Life arises and changes continually. As for what we are, we are beyond physical form, and timeless. The laws of creation and dissolution do not apply to what we are. The illusion you are talking about insofar as your body being the sum total pf what you are is the illusion that causes all sin, meaning that original sin is simply ignorance of what we are.

Your friend
Sufjon

We live in a single universe. I don’t buy the multiple-worlds interpretation (not to mention “chaotic inflation” is the most ridiculous physical theory set forth this side of the steady-state or eternal universe, even more ridiculous than atheistic evolution). I’m a strict Copenhagenist. One universe was created; one universe shall die. There were no others before, nor shall there be any after, as heat death does not provide a way for another universe to be born (black holes will dissipate, and, even if they didn’t, the black-holy baby universe theory has been disproved), even disregarding divine intervention (which is certain).

We are physical form, yet still beyond physical form, but we are not pure soul that has fallen from a spiritual realm - we are instantiated forms, or participators in the form, of rational animal. The body is not the sum total of what we are, there I agree.

The only ignorance we have is the ignorance of our own inadequacy and sin, and ignorance of Christ the Redeemer. Or, the only sin we have is ignorance of our sin, as, without conviction of sin, inherited from our first parents through which death entered the world, we can not be forgiven. Reality is not illusion, nor ignorance of what we are, but true reality (that is, it is real, in a common-sense manner, as Aristotle preached), perceivable for the most part by the senses, understandable through logic, and is what it appears to be, and as fallen as it appears to be: we know our own nature, once convicted of sin and inadequacy by the Holy Spirit, summed up in one word: sinner.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CMatt25;9064359:

Yes but does the RCC know hes excommunicated? I husband is boycotting a store now, and I said does the store know?

He excommunicates himself by rejecting his Catholic faith for another faith.

Catechesis is required here for the UU member to know of this excommunication and he is unable to recieve the blessed Sacrament, without going to confession. The question remains whether he knows this or not? When it appears the UU member is holding to some Catholic traditions, raises another question if he ever attends Mass during any special feast days that bring into them many traditions such as the Christ- Mass during Christmas and Easter?

 

[SteveGC]

One could argue if even at the age of 7 a child has the reason to fully grasp and discern for themselves Catholic teaching on the Eucharist for example. They can know what is being told them during catechesis. But I’m not sure every 7 yr old has the capacity to study other faiths and decide what they believe until later in life. So again I question what of the baptized infant who received proper catechesis, believed and followed the faith, and then at some point in later yrs had a change in belief?

** I know Steve tried to argue that “No one who truly believes would ever leave the truth”. He went on to say “IOW, if they leave, they never actually believed”.

If that’s the case, then why bother to put into CCC that the person who knew but does not remain could not be saved? Considering such a case can not even exist?**

I’ve been absent from the discussion for a bit, but I see that some of my comments are being discussed, so I thought I should clarify my meaning.

I ventured into this “never actually believed” concept initially responding to CMatt’s comment as follows:

CMatt25:

My problem though with what the Church states is even if Seeker’s UU RC friend at one time did know and believe this, he apparently had a change in belief or he would have “remained”.

The point I was trying to make is that there is head knowledge (intellect) and heart knowledge (assent of the will to that knowledge). My argument was that if someone possesses both of these, specifically within Catholicism, meaning they knew fully the truth of the Catholic faith, and grew into a faith in that truth, then the only thing that could “change their belief” and lead them away would be false information. They would not leave if they were not exposed to falsity - or in other words, they would leave only if they were exposed to a falsehood, and accepted it as truth. This wasn’t to negate the Church teaching that one who knows and departs could not be saved - rather it was to point out that departure would not happen unless falsehood entered the equation. The point I was trying to emphasize is the fullness of truth which Catholicism uniquely possesses. Leaving that truth would be due to an untruth becoming more subjectively appealing than the truth. This is not an attempt to say the Church teaches this concept, it is merely an opinionated argument. Obviously the point was not well made, and caused a diversion of the topic, so I apologize.

 

[seeker57]

Although I’m not Catholic, I don’t see how one can be a Roman Catholic Unitarian Universalist since, unless I’m mistaken, Unitarians do not believe in the Trinity.

Well, yes and no.

Unitarians were a Christian sect at the time of the American Revolution. It grew from a schism among the state-supported congregational churches founded by the Puritans and did indeed not believe in the trinity.

In the context of a classic Unitarian, you would be correct.

Universalists were Protestant churches that preached universal salvation, and either discounted or disavowed the concept of hell.

These two faith communities merged in 1961, but by that time, they had changed quite a bit.

Today, a Unitarian Universalist considers himself to be a part of a liberal theology.

Our congregations are mixed, as are our sources of faith.

While we still accept our Judeo-Christian heritage and its teachings to love and care for our neighbors, we find the study and discussion of other faiths also helps broaden our experience of the divine, which many of us find is too great to be explained or experienced through a single faith tradition.

So. in that sense, the man I mentioned could consider himself a UU Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholicism may also provide him a glimpse of the divine.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[CMatt25]

Well, yes and no.

Unitarians were a Christian sect at the time of the American Revolution. It grew from a schism among the state-supported congregational churches founded by the Puritans and did indeed not believe in the trinity.

In the context of a classic Unitarian, you would be correct.

Universalists were Protestant churches that preached universal salvation, and either discounted or disavowed the concept of hell.

These two faith communities merged in 1961, but by that time, they had changed quite a bit.

Today, a Unitarian Universalist considers himself to be a part of a liberal theology.

Our congregations are mixed, as are our sources of faith.

While we still accept our Judeo-Christian heritage and its teachings to love and care for our neighbors, we find the study and discussion of other faiths also helps broaden our experience of the divine, which many of us find is too great to be explained or experienced through a single faith tradition.

So. in that sense, the man I mentioned could consider himself a UU Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholicism may also provide him a glimpse of the divine.

Peace,

Seeker

Nicely said Seeker. Just a question. Were Universalists non-Trinitarian as the Unitarians were prior to the merger?

 

[peace2u2]

I’ve been absent from the discussion for a bit, but I see that some of my comments are being discussed, so I thought I should clarify my meaning.

I ventured into this “never actually believed” concept initially responding to CMatt’s comment as follows: The point I was trying to make is that there is head knowledge (intellect) and heart knowledge (assent of the will to that knowledge). My argument was that if someone possesses both of these, specifically within Catholicism, meaning they knew fully the truth of the Catholic faith, and grew into a faith in that truth, then the only thing that could “change their belief” and lead them away would be false information. They would not leave if they were not exposed to falsity - or in other words, they would leave only if they were exposed to a falsehood, and accepted it as truth. This wasn’t to negate the Church teaching that one who knows and departs could not be saved - rather it was to point out that departure would not happen unless falsehood entered the equation. The point I was trying to emphasize is the fullness of truth which Catholicism uniquely possesses. Leaving that truth would be due to an untruth becoming more subjectively appealing than the truth. This is not an attempt to say the Church teaches this concept, it is merely an opinionated argument. Obviously the point was not well made, and caused a diversion of the topic, so I apologize.

That is correct, if a person is raised with the fullness of the Truth that the Catholic Church teaches, their hearts and minds would not be in conflict nor would they be led astray by false teachings. The complication arises when your asked to defend your Catholic faith and when you cannot because you were taught something different or perhaps you were not really taught anything at all about your Catholic faith and you went as blindly as your parents who taught you when receiving the Sacraments and maybe not really going to Church to worship God and not really being taught how to pray and if you attended public school and weren’t taught anything about your Catholic faith, unfortunately and sadly, you are more likely to be led away by lies.

I believe that especially for children who attend public school and receive their religious education thru a CCD program, this education should not be an end after they receive The Sacrament of Confirmation. Perhaps, the Sacrament of Confirmation should be received when we are 18 and there should be a religious education program up and through high school. It seems like the current age of 14 or in 8th grade becomes an end and that is the age where the devil runs rampant with lies and our children are led down a path of destruction through addictions like alcohol, drugs, pornography, pre-marital sex, the pleasure list goes on and on and sadly, they are led further and further from the truth.

As parents, we are our children’s first teachers. We must teach them the fullness of the truth that is only found in the Catholic Church. We must teach them to love their Catholic Faith and not be afraid to say so! We must also teach them the correct way to defend their Catholic Faith. We must teach them yes the Traditions of the Catholic Church and WE MUST TEACH THEM HOW TO READ SACRED SCRIPTURE: THE BIBLE! They need to be taught how all 7 Sacraments are rooted in the Old Testament and are instituted by Jesus in the New Testament. We need to teach them to love their brothers and sisters in Christ who practice their faith in the Protestant church for they have taught their children well how to read the Bible and to love it. So should we.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Our congregations are mixed, as are our sources of faith.

While we still accept our Judeo-Christian heritage and its teachings to love and care for our neighbors, we find the study and discussion of other faiths also helps broaden our experience of the divine, which many of us find is too great to be explained or experienced through a single faith tradition.

So. in that sense, the man I mentioned could consider himself a UU Roman Catholic, because Roman Catholicism may also provide him a glimpse of the divine.

Peace,

Seeker

If this is the case then, your new UU member is never Roman Catholic in practice as far what he may think he mixes his Roman Catholic Faith with UU is never the case. If it were his Roman Catholicism becomes heretical. The reason it does not reach this stage of heretical because the UU member never has the faculties to validate his Roman Catholicism practices mixing with the UU faith. Only a baptised Christian in a UU community with outer practices that may mirror Roman Catholicism.

What you reveal here is a Label “Roman Catholic” of the UU member, never a Roman Catholic in practice as a UU member. So no mixing can ever reach the divine under this false pretense as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned because the UU member does not possess the faculties to make it so, especially while be self excommunicated.

There is a deception being lived out here in this mixture.

 

[Deconi]

We live in a single universe. I don’t buy the multiple-worlds interpretation (not to mention “chaotic inflation” is the most ridiculous physical theory set forth this side of the steady-state or eternal universe, even more ridiculous than atheistic evolution). I’m a strict Copenhagenist. One universe was created; one universe shall die. There were no others before, nor shall there be any after, as heat death does not provide a way for another universe to be born (black holes will dissipate, and, even if they didn’t, the black-holy baby universe theory has been disproved), even disregarding divine intervention (which is certain).

We are physical form, yet still beyond physical form, but we are not pure soul that has fallen from a spiritual realm - we are instantiated forms, or participators in the form, of rational animal. The body is not the sum total of what we are, there I agree.

The only ignorance we have is the ignorance of our own inadequacy and sin, and ignorance of Christ the Redeemer. Or, the only sin we have is ignorance of our sin, as, without conviction of sin, inherited from our first parents through which death entered the world, we can not be forgiven. Reality is not illusion, nor ignorance of what we are, but true reality (that is, it is real, in a common-sense manner, as Aristotle preached), perceivable for the most part by the senses, understandable through logic, and is what it appears to be, and as fallen as it appears to be: we know our own nature, once convicted of sin and inadequacy by the Holy Spirit, summed up in one word: sinner.

Ha ha…NICE!
Succinct


Just a reminder here, a Catholic DOES NOT call into question the Catholicity of another!

It is true that once marked by Baptism, for Christ, you are marked for life!
But for whatever reason, a baptised Catholic can wander the ‘wilderness’ of faith communities, and if s/he is searching for God, is between s/he and He!

For those (of us) who remain, keep the ‘fires burning’ through faith and deed so the way home can be seen from every direction!

For the OP’s friend, the very fact that ‘he’ brought up his Roman Catholic ‘identity’ is significant and reflects something in his ‘self’ that is stirred by invisible guidance.

He is not excommunicated until he is excommunicated. Anyone seen a list of the excommunicated in the last 100years lying around?!

 

[Sufjon]

We live in a single universe. I don’t buy the multiple-worlds interpretation (not to mention “chaotic inflation” is the most ridiculous physical theory set forth this side of the steady-state or eternal universe, even more ridiculous than atheistic evolution). I’m a strict Copenhagenist.

The fact that you don’t buy it and find it ridiculous doesn’t constitute an argument of any substance. My view has always been that being a Copenhagenist.relates more to things like wave potentials and such rather than relating to a particular school of cosmology, but I am not a scientist, so you might be able to point me in the right direction there.

One universe was created; one universe shall die. There were no others before, nor shall there be any after, as heat death does not provide a way for another universe to be born (black holes will dissipate, and, even if they didn’t, the black-holy baby universe theory has been disproved), even disregarding divine intervention (which is certain).

Regarding a multiverse theory, there are a lot of well credentialed scientists who would disagree with you. Regarding your certainty of divine intervention, I happen to believe that too, but I don’t see how it relates to that particular theory. I am very open to the idea, but someone telling me that it’s certain isn’t going to hold up on it’s own.

We are physical form, yet still beyond physical form, but we are not pure soul that has fallen from a spiritual realm - we are instantiated forms, or participators in the form, of rational animal. The body is not the sum total of what we are, there I agree.

Glad.

The only ignorance we have is the ignorance of our own inadequacy and sin, and ignorance of Christ the Redeemer. Or, the only sin we have is ignorance of our sin, as, without conviction of sin, inherited from our first parents through which death entered the world, we can not be forgiven. Reality is not illusion, nor ignorance of what we are, but true reality (that is, it is real, in a common-sense manner, as Aristotle preached), perceivable for the most part by the senses, understandable through logic, and is what it appears to be, and as fallen as it appears to be: we know our own nature, once convicted of sin and inadequacy by the Holy Spirit, summed up in one word: sinner.

That is a belief system that you follow. Personally, I have no need to be forgiven or saved. That is a hope and fear of your faith. My faith has neither hope or fear, rather, we rest in the certainty of God’s love. But again, that is my belief. You are free to see things as you will. Seeing a creation of God in such terms as “sinner” and the like is not a view I could ever entertain. But again, I am not suggesting that you adopt what I believe.

Your friend,
Sufjon