Ok, how would this inquisition determine if she is really a practicing Catholic or not? How would they compell her to participate in the inquisition? What methods would be used to “force” her compliance? And what exactly would/could they do about it if, for example, it was determined that she is not really a praticing catholic? What is the point? What will the outcome be? What exactly is the desired result?For an inquisition to be an inquisition it wouldn’t involve atheists or Jews or Muslims. It would strictly apply to people who profess to be Catholic. For example, Nancy Pelosi stands blatantly against the teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion. An inquisition would determine if she’s really a practising Catholic or not.
-Prophecy
In my mind it wouldn’t really be about ‘force’ as seems implied. There’d likely be a tribunal that would investigate if she is in public mortal sin. If she was deemed to be gravely so, they’d present a case against her and she’d have to defend. If the ruling goes against her, she can no longer claim to be a ‘Catholic of good standing’, as she has in the past.Ok, how would this inquisition determine if she is really a practicing Catholic or not? How would they compell her to participate in the inquisition? What methods would be used to “force” her compliance? And what exactly would/could they do about it if, for example, it was determined that she is not really a praticing catholic? What is the point? What will the outcome be? What exactly is the desired result?
So basically, the Church would investigate her, and give her an opportunity to defend herself. Then they would determine whether or not she was in communion with the Church, and if not, she would be excommunicated. Right?In my mind it wouldn’t really be about ‘force’ as seems implied. There’d likely be a tribunal that would investigate if she is in public mortal sin. If she was deemed to be gravely so, they’d present a case against her and she’d have to defend. If the ruling goes against her, she can no longer claim to be a ‘Catholic of good standing’, as she has in the past.
I see what you’re saying. But do you think that maybe the Church itself has a bit of accountability or responsibility for this given that they require baptism before someone can make a choice as to whether or not they want to follow those rules? This of course, makes an ‘indelible mark’ on one’s soul such that the Church teaches that they own that soul as Catholic. So even if the person wants to leave the Church, it’s a moot point because the Church still holds that person to canon law and still own that soul even if that soul formally left the Church. Those teachings don’t inspire one to simply leave the faith. Why should they when they are still considered Catholic by the Church? See what I mean?The point would be for the Church to show that being Catholic is different than being in a bookclub, that there are things which must be adhered to. The desired result is ultimately for a person who is grave public dissent to realize the err and to either renounce the heresy or to stop shepherding Catholics away from the Church (i.e. as Catholics for Choice does).
lol, this would just result in people leaving the church. I guess that is what you want though? I can’t imagine many people would subject themselves to going to trial about their moral status.In my mind it wouldn’t really be about ‘force’ as seems implied. There’d likely be a tribunal that would investigate if she is in public mortal sin. If she was deemed to be gravely so, they’d present a case against her and she’d have to defend. If the ruling goes against her, she can no longer claim to be a ‘Catholic of good standing’, as she has in the past.
The point would be for the Church to show that being Catholic is different than being in a bookclub, that there are things which must be adhered to. The desired result is ultimately for a person who is grave public dissent to realize the err and to either renounce the heresy or to stop shepherding Catholics away from the Church (i.e. as Catholics for Choice does).
As for the outcome, I don’t know what the outcome would be, it’d be based on the rulings of the tribunal in each case.
-Prophecy
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. I’m glad someone on the inside understands this point. As an ex-Catholic, people on this forum tend to look at me like a rabid dog when I bring this point up. You wouldn’t have nearly the problem you do now with “Catholic in name only” or “cafeteria Catholics” if you allowed people to leave and required their informed consent to join. The church now wants it both ways. They like to be able to claim 1.3 billion people while only granting “real” Catholic status to the fraction, perhaps 200-300 million, who practice the faith in accordance with Rome. That tends to inspire contempt in people who figure that if they can’t be free of the church, the church also can’t be free of them. (A free lesson in the downfalls of binding magick BTW). It’s somewhat analagous to the cops who fly across the country handcuffed to their prisoner or an occupying army. After a while, it’s not always clear who has who captive.So basically, the Church would investigate her, and give her an opportunity to defend herself. Then they would determine whether or not she was in communion with the Church, and if not, she would be excommunicated. Right?
Now, I know you are referring to Catholics, but questionhaver is talking about forcing Baptists and other denominations into being Catholic – by force.
I see what you’re saying. But do you think that maybe the Church itself has a bit of accountability or responsibility for this given that they require baptism before someone can make a choice as to whether or not they want to follow those rules? This of course, makes an ‘indelible mark’ on one’s soul such that the Church teaches that they own that soul as Catholic. So even if the person wants to leave the Church, it’s a moot point because the Church still holds that person to canon law and still own that soul even if that soul formally left the Church. Those teachings don’t inspire one to simply leave the faith. Why should they when they are still considered Catholic by the Church? See what I mean?
Look how hard it is for converts to enter the Church. They go through rigorous RCIA and extensive preparation for the reception of the Sacraments. But those ‘born’ into the faith are just simply Baptised and basically go through the motions.
So really, the Church is “acquiring” members, without the consent of the baptismal candidate by infant Baptism, and then committing them to follow the rules of the Church, always and forever considering that person Catholic – without considering that if the person actually made the choice as a consenting adult, they may not have made that commitment in the first place.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m all for infant Baptism and I’m all for laying down a solid Catholic foundation for babies and children to build on. That’s how my grandparents were raised, and my parents, and I was raised and I would continue that if I were ever blessed with Children. But you can’t have it both ways. The Church and it’s “army” of followers (like Questionhaver for example) can’t really complain later when these people decide that that’s not where they want to be when they’re adults. At the same time that they’re leading their “inquisition”, they tell them that the Church owns them so they better just obey the Church and go by its teachings, and wonder why they don’t either comply or leave the Church. Again, why would they leave if the Church considers them Catholic even after leaving? They may as well just leave things the way they are and do as they please.
Also, keep in mind, if someone rejects the teachings of the Church and does not follow them, they don’t respect the “authority” that the Church teaches it has over people in the first place because they don’t believe that the Church has such authority over them.
One thing I must add is that a child doesn’t have to go to confession after they’ve been baptized, you don’t usher 2 year old into the confessional. Keep in mind the Sacrament of Confirmation.So basically, the Church would investigate her, and give her an opportunity to defend herself. Then they would determine whether or not she was in communion with the Church, and if not, she would be excommunicated. Right?
Now, I know you are referring to Catholics, but questionhaver is talking about forcing Baptists and other denominations into being Catholic – by force.
I see what you’re saying. But do you think that maybe the Church itself has a bit of accountability or responsibility for this given that they require baptism before someone can make a choice as to whether or not they want to follow those rules? This of course, makes an ‘indelible mark’ on one’s soul such that the Church teaches that they own that soul as Catholic. So even if the person wants to leave the Church, it’s a moot point because the Church still holds that person to canon law and still own that soul even if that soul formally left the Church. Those teachings don’t inspire one to simply leave the faith. Why should they when they are still considered Catholic by the Church? See what I mean?
Look how hard it is for converts to enter the Church. They go through rigorous RCIA and extensive preparation for the reception of the Sacraments. But those ‘born’ into the faith are just simply Baptised and basically go through the motions.
So really, the Church is “acquiring” members, without the consent of the baptismal candidate by infant Baptism, and then committing them to follow the rules of the Church, always and forever considering that person Catholic – without considering that if the person actually made the choice as a consenting adult, they may not have made that commitment in the first place.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m all for infant Baptism and I’m all for laying down a solid Catholic foundation for babies and children to build on. That’s how my grandparents were raised, and my parents, and I was raised and I would continue that if I were ever blessed with Children. But you can’t have it both ways. The Church and it’s “army” of followers (like Questionhaver for example) can’t really complain later when these people decide that that’s not where they want to be when they’re adults. At the same time that they’re leading their “inquisition”, they tell them that the Church owns them so they better just obey the Church and go by its teachings, and wonder why they don’t either comply or leave the Church. Again, why would they leave if the Church considers them Catholic even after leaving? They may as well just leave things the way they are and do as they please.
Also, keep in mind, if someone rejects the teachings of the Church and does not follow them, they don’t respect the “authority” that the Church teaches it has over people in the first place because they don’t believe that the Church has such authority over them.
If they’re going to leave the Church because they don’t accept the teachings should they really be stating that they’re ‘Catholics in good standing’? Being baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church doesn’t guarantee salvation, so is it better for them to float around thinking that salvation is guaranteed?lol, this would just result in people leaving the church. I guess that is what you want though? I can’t imagine many people would subject themselves to going to trial about their moral status.