Well, at the risk of ‘talking down to you’, your comment above doesn’t seem like you stand behind councils, popes, Church Fathers, Vatican II and especially the Catechism.
It seems, right off the top of my head, by your comments above, that starting with the Catechism, you’re not behind the teachings regarding Muslims or even Hindus at all.Indeed I can. She will either raise her child in the faith or not…most likely not in the faith (which is sad). However that does not mean that Catholic Bishops in the British isles need to make excuses for her doing this-that sows confusion among the faithful (hence the news article and this thread).
First of all, Kate’s marriage is valid unless proven otherwise. There’s that. Second of all, were it her wish to raise her kids Catholic, she may not have that choice considering her job is to produce an heir, and the heir can’t be anything other than Anglican. Therefore, the piece quoted in the OP, and explained by Brother JR would support her. Whether or not she disregards her responsibility to produce an heir to the throne only time will tell. I don’t know about Kate. Does anyone? We’ll have to watch and see.
What constitutes invisible ignorance?Well, at the risk of ‘talking down to you’, your comment above doesn’t seem like you stand behind councils, popes, Church Fathers, Vatican II and especially the Catechism.
Okay how about a more ‘modern’ pope?Well, at the risk of ‘talking down to you’, your comment above doesn’t seem like you stand behind councils, popes, Church Fathers, Vatican II and especially the Catechism.
How can you explain that away with the (heretical) idea that ‘back then they didn’t have protestant sects’?
You’d have to talk to her or her bishop about that. I’m not going to entertain speculating about it. As far as I can tell, she is validly married and in good standing with the Church.
But my point stands. If her marriage is valid in the eyes of the church, she would have had to have a dispensation. To have this dispensation, she would have had to agreed (at that time) to try to raise her children Catholic (baptism in the church, the whole nine yards).
Have you followed the links I provided for you? Because you’ll notice, they answer all your questions.
I’m sorry, I guess you’d have to ask those Bishops. I understand what they’re saying and don’t have any questions for them. It makes sense to me. I don’t know of any Catholic who is in line for the British throne. There might be, but I don’t know of any and they won’t ever get the throne. In the case of Kate, it’s pretty straightforward. But only time will tell what direction she goes. In light of the timely statement from the Bishop, I’m pretty sure she will raise her children Anglican.
Well, OF COURSE. Nothing above is untrue. And nothing above says only Catholics will go to Heaven. OF COURSE it’s harder because they lack the fullness of truth. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, or that it doesn’t happen.
If a media quote from a member of the British parliment is enough in your mind to overrule the Code of Canon Law and the CCC’s very clear teaching, then I have nothing else to say.
It doesn’t override the Code of Canon Law or the Catechism. The Church never did hold people accountable for things that were beyond their control. It could very well be that a Catholic spouse fully intended to raise their children Catholic at the time of the marriage and spouse changed his/her mind. We just don’t know what goes on behind those closed doors. I can say with a great deal of certainty though, that if a Catholic spouse was overruled, royalty or non-royalty, they don’t have any choice in the matter and the Bishop’s comments make sense. People can’t be held responsible for what they can’t control. And I’m certain that the Bishop’s words bring comfort to them in that case.
My understanding is that this is a different situation. In this case, what seems to be stated is that parents do not have to raise their child as Catholic because it might prevent them from being in the line of succession for the throne of England. I don’t see anything which suggests parents at odds with one another. Even if that were the case, and they were married in the Catholic Church, the parent who is not Catholic would have promised to raise the children which result from that marriage as Catholic.
I can see much that suggest parents at odds with one another. The whole purpose of any monarch, say for example, Prince William, getting married is to produce an heir and that heir woud have to be Anglican. I can surely see how he would be at odds with Kate if she wanted to raise the children Catholic (not likely to happen), thereby depriving him of his birthright as well as depriving an entire nation of its heir.
That may be but I believe BrJR operates on the principle that children are not responsible for the sins of their parents. I too follow this principle.
we are not specifically talking about children though; we are talking about non-catholics who know that the church teaches that she is the only means of salvation and yet still do not believe. This would encompass a large swath of Anglicans, protestants, muslims, etc. At what point does someone go from being ‘inculpably ignorant’ and enter into the realm of rejecting the one true faith?
I think this is the key. It seems as if “Invincible ignorance” has been applied to almost everyone who is not Catholic. Ridiculous.
Here’s the thing…no one is telling them this. Whether directly or through certain ecumenical actions we are telling them something VERY different. This is why the Pope’s comments the other day about how you can not know Jesus outside Mother Church (sounds pretty much like outside the Church there is no salvation) is critical. I know that those words were fighting words to a lot of non-Catholics on another forum.