Any Catholics around who reject a teaching or two? Post here!

[Gorgias]

Heresy, schism and apostasy seperate members of the Church from the Church. Such are not merely dead members; they are, in reality, non-members.

August,

How do you reconcile these assertions with the Catechism, #1272 and 1463?

Thanks!

G.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Ever?

Wow… I guess the bishop who ordained him a Catholic priest would be surprised to hear that, huh? :sad_yes:

Irrelevant.

Is a citizen of America who betrays his country not a traitor because he was (and in a way is) technically American? Nonetheless it is abhorent to thought to think of traitors as natural members of a society, exactly because they have behaved unnaturally in respect to that society. They have, in fact, denounced it and disqualified themselves.

 

[1AugustSon7]

August,

How do you reconcile these assertions with the Catechism, #1272 and 1463?

Thanks!

G.

Easy.

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

 

[Gorgias]

Irrelevant.

Is a citizen of America who betrays his country not a traitor because he was (and in a way is) technically American? Nonetheless it is abhorent to thought to think of traitors as natural members of a society, exactly because they have behaved unnaturally in respect to that society. They have, in fact, denounced it and disqualified themselves.

Apples and oranges. We’re not talking about civil law and treason, we’re talking about the character of the sacrament of baptism…!

 

[LemonAndLime]

Irrelevant.

Is a citizen of America who betrays his country not a traitor because he was (and in a way is) technically American? Nonetheless it is abhorent to thought to think of traitors as natural members of a society, exactly because they have behaved unnaturally in respect to that society. They have, in fact, denounced it and disqualified themselves.

So does that mean that all sinners are no longer Catholic?

 

[1AugustSon7]

So does that mean that all sinners are no longer Catholic?

Are all criminals no longer Americans?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Are all criminals no longer Americans?

No. Some are British, or French, German, Italian, Spanish…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Apples and oranges. We’re not talking about civil law and treason, we’re talking about the character of the sacrament of baptism…!

No. They are sufficiently analogous. The Kingdom of God is, afterall, a polity; and the Church is a perfect society.

In fact, we can make this point even simpler. If Tom Brady was discovered to be deliberately throwing passes to the opposing team, he would be disqualified as a New England Patriot because he is, in effect, not playing for his team anymore. His reasons are immaterial. At minimum, he is deliberately injuring his own team/society, which suffices to disqualify him from that team, as he is not working as a member of it.

This is common sense.

 

[1AugustSon7]

No. Some are British, or French, German, Italian, Spanish…

If you went to America and robbed a store, you do not cease being Brittish, though you are a criminal.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No. They are sufficiently analogous. The Kingdom of God is, afterall, a polity; and the Church is a perfect society.

In fact, we can make this point even simpler. If Tom Brady was discovered to be deliberately throwing passes to the opposing team, he would be disqualified as a New England Patriot because he is, in effect, not playing for his team anymore. His reasons are immaterial. At minimum, he is deliberately injuring his own team/society, which suffices to disqualify him from that team, as he is not working as a member of it.

This is common sense.

Who is Tom Brady? New England Patriots?

Anyway, your example is a bad one. When we are baptised we receive a mark that cannot be taken away. That means it cannot be taken away even by sin. Hence why we are always Catholic, always have the Holy Spirit, and always have the promise of redemption. A sin does not remove that mark, only stains your soul. It can always be washed away with an honest confession and plea for forgiveness.

You seem to be talking a little like a Calvinist.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Who is Tom Brady? New England Patriots?

Anyway, your example is a bad one. When we are baptised we receive a mark that cannot be taken away.

Irrelevant. When I am born I am human and that cannot be taken away either. It does not mean I can’t become a traitor to my country and be lawfully punished for doing so.

That means it cannot be taken away even by sin.

The mark cannot be taken away but the benefits can; e.g., Heaven, or Church membership.

Hence why we are always Catholic,

False.

What you describe is “once saved, always saved.” That is not the Catholic teaching.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Irrelevant. When I am born I am human and that cannot be taken away either. It does not mean I can’t become a traitor to my country and be lawfully punished for doing so.

Here you say punished. Before you were talking about stopping being an American or a Catholic. Which is it? Punishment or banishment?

The mark cannot be taken away but the benefits can; e.g., Heaven, or Church membership.

Excommunication can be enacted, but there is never a point of no return. The Church welcomes all back with loving arms. That is my point and one you don’t seem to understand.

False.

What you describe is “once saved, always saved.” That is not the Catholic teaching.

But it’s what you are saying. You do not stop being a Catholic just because you sin. You appear to be asserting that if you sin, then you stop being a Catholic and that’s it. We do not believe that and as others have pointed out you are disgareeing with the Catechism.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Here you say punished. Before you were talking about stopping being an American or a Catholic. Which is it? Punishment or banishment?

Specious.

Banishment is a form of punishment, as is execution.

Excommunication can be enacted, but there is never a point of no return.

False.

After death a man can no longer repent.

The Church welcomes all back with loving arms. That is my point and one you don’t seem to understand.

The Church “welcomes back” you say? By your own confession they must have left.

But it’s what you are saying. You do not stop being a Catholic just because you sin.

Heresy, schism and apostasy cause seperation from the Church ipso facto (by Divine Law) by their very nature. Mortal sins cause us to become dead members of the Church. You are failing to make proper distinctions. Treason and petty theft are both crimes but not the same kind of crime and hence worthy of different punishments.

You appear to be asserting that if you sin, then you stop being a Catholic and that’s it.

No I am not. You are desperately trying to twist my words to give that impression. I have never said anything like that.

We do not believe that and as others have pointed out you are disgareeing with the Catechism.

No I am not. I am agreeing with Christ Himself:

1. The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church,[1] was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself.

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

23… For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

 

[Luvtosew]

N.B. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio entitled Omnium in Mentem dated October 26, 2009 and made public on December 15, 2009 adjusts canon law and removes all references to “defecting from the Catholic Church by a formal act” in canons 1086.1, 1117, and 1124 as excusing Catholics from the canonical form of marriage. This action strengthens the proposition Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic).

 

[1AugustSon7]

N.B. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio entitled Omnium in Mentem dated October 26, 2009 and made public on December 15, 2009 adjusts canon law and removes all references to “defecting from the Catholic Church by a formal act” in canons 1086.1, 1117, and 1124 as excusing Catholics from the canonical form of marriage. This action strengthens the proposition Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic).

You are confusing Ecclesiastical Law with Divine Law. Divine Law cannot be amended or altered by the Church. As the Encyclical I quoted above immediately announces and makes clear, the teaching I am defending is from Christ Himself.

 

[Luvtosew]

My gosh how many writings and laws does the CC have, one can get lost for years in the pile of documents.

This action strengthens the proposition Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic).

How bout just this part of it.

the teaching I am defending is from Christ Himself

do you have his telephone number I need it?

 

[1AugustSon7]

my gosh how many writings and laws does the cc have, one can get lost for years in the pile of documents.

this action strengthens the proposition semel catholicus semper catholicus (once a catholic always a catholic).

how bout just this part of it.

the teaching i am defending is from christ himself

do you have his telephone number i need it?

1-800-prayers.

 

[Luvtosew]

1-800-prayers.

 

[Zundrah]

Hmm… what happened here?

 

[Carlan]

As a sufferer of postpartum depression and psychosis, which landed me in the psych hospital for a week for suicidal plans. I don’t think the church should tell me to abstain from my husband to prevent it happening again, figuring I had 20+ more years of childbearing age. I chose sterilization, I take responsibility, I am open to new life through adoption, but I don’t think that only men should be able to determine if this was right or wrong. Depression looks easy to treat, on paper, but it is 3.5 years later, and we are still tweaking meds. I am working on my profession of faith, but that is the teaching I most disagree with. NOT that it should be a common occurrence, but, I think in the matter of the health of the mother being gravely affected, there should be understanding.

Just my opinion, I know there are tons of people on here that disagree with that, but I am not trying to convince anyone I am right. I just am voicing my answer to the question.

As Catholics we know that when we commit mortal sin and repent and receive forgiveness in the Sacrament we are reconciled once again with the Father.
Sterilization is very wrong no matter the circumstances, if a person cannot accept that and does not seek reconciliation for the sin, well then ,it wll remain between them and God until the end.We pray.Peace, Carlan