We are not bound by the 1917 Code since it was updated by the Pope in 1983. Does anyone understand the nuance between excommunication and only mortal sin? yes, mortal sin is bad. excommunication is worse, and not the same thing.Ok. Let’s say that it isn’t infallible. Let’s say that you are right. Then all the saints and popes are wrong too!
Pope Saint Pius X created the 1917 code of canon law which clearly excommunicates Freemasons
“The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion…Consequently, neither the excommunication nor the other penalties envisaged have been abrogated.” - Cardinal Ratzinger, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 26, 1983
St. Maximilian Kolbe was against Freemasons.
Yet this document is not infallible.Yes, I realize all this. So, I admit, it is not excommunication. I was wrong in that regard. Nonetheless, my stance on freemasonry being evil and an enemy of the Church is clearly still standing, supported by what you yourself are saying.
It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.Ok. So consider this. If you commit a mortal sin. You cannot receive Eucharist. However, you are not excommunicated.
This is what the letter states. You are trying to say the two are equal and they are not. Yes, not being eligable to receive the Eucharist is an intense punishment, however it is not excommunication. You can still confess. Excommunication denies access to ALL the sacraments. You’re misunderstanding is warping your entire conceptualization of the issue.
This letter was written to clarify the Canon Law. The clarified, explicitly mentioned penalty is denial of the Eucharist, NOT excommunication.
Again, please research this further. The question of infallibility (which this document does not meet the requirements of) cannot be discussed until you understand what excommunication even means.
All of your quotes are canonically irrelevant. The updated code is the 1983, and that is the dogmatic explanation of all aspects of the faith. The letter from the CDF was a clarification. For the last time (hopefully), excommunication was NOT the prescribed punishment. It WAS denial from receiving the Eucharist.It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.
Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged…
Seems pretty clear to me.
Plus, I have listed at least 3 saints that condemn freemasonry:
“It is not the Church who first raised the standard, she did so only because war had been declared against her. For the last 25 years she has only had to bear the struggle. Such is the Truth. Declarations, a thousand times published and republished in the Press, in congresses, in Masonic conventions, in the very halls of Parliament, are proof in themselves that attacks against the Church have been led progressively and systematically. Such facts cannot be denied and against them mere words cannot prevail . . .” (From letter of Pope Pius X to France, January 6, 1907.)"
- Pope Pius X: complied some volumes of 1917 code of canon law which excommunicates them plus this quote:
He acts like they aren’t Catholic
- Pope John Paul II: I already quoted him in previous posts
- Maximillian Kolbe: Do a quick internet search.
Do understand how faulty your above is in regards to excommunication and not being able to receive the Sacrament?Not being allwoed to receive Eucharist is the worst part of excommunication, and it is WAY more serious then you think. If that is not condemnation I dont knwo what is.
He’s right you know.All of your quotes are canonically irrelevant. The updated code is the 1983, and that is the dogmatic explanation of all aspects of the faith. The letter from the CDF was a clarification. For the last time (hopefully), excommunication was NOT the prescribed punishment. It WAS denial from receiving the Eucharist.
A quick internet search is not what will solve the problem. That may be where your misunderstanding comes from. I have investigated this issue for the greater part of a year now because it is confusing. I hope you will come to understand what the Church really and officially teaches. (<which, by the way, is all compiled neatly for anyone, in the 1983 Code, and its subsequent clarifications).
Thank you.He’s right you know.
The letter from CDF was a clarification that they are still excommunicated. They said that the teaching was unchanged. (I bolded that word in my post above)All of your quotes are canonically irrelevant. The updated code is the 1983, and that is the dogmatic explanation of all aspects of the faith. The letter from the CDF was a clarification. For the last time (hopefully), excommunication was NOT the prescribed punishment. It WAS denial from receiving the Eucharist.
A quick internet search is not what will solve the problem. That may be where your misunderstanding comes from. I have investigated this issue for the greater part of a year now because it is confusing. I hope you will come to understand what the Church really and officially teaches. (<which, by the way, is all compiled neatly for anyone, in the 1983 Code, and its subsequent clarifications).
Is that infallible?He’s right you know.
Freemasonry doesn’t have a theology. Each member is allowed to have his own religious convictions. Tolerance of religious doversity is not itself a religious belief.The letter from CDF was a clarification that they are still excommunicated. They said that the teaching was unchanged. (I bolded that word in my post above)
I know excommunication is different from being denied the Eucharist. What I am saying is that the CDF said that they are denied the Eucharist and that the teaching was unchanged.
Note that the CDF didn’t say that they weren’t excommunicated, it said they were to be denied communion(part of excommunication). Then they said the teaching is unchanged, and since the previous teaching was that they were excommunicated, they say that they are still excommunicated.
Also, if Freemasons are just in a state of mortal sin, then that means that they would have to accept the Catholic Church’s teachings. Freemasonry’s theology is different than the Church. They believe in different stuff then we do.
Really? The CDF just decided to poorly word the letter and assume people would connect the not being able to receive Communion which is pretty standard for anyone who is in the state of mortal/grave sin as they’re excommunicated?The letter from CDF was a clarification that they are still excommunicated. They said that the teaching was unchanged. (I bolded that word in my post above)
I know excommunication is different from being denied the Eucharist. What I am saying is that the CDF said that they are denied the Eucharist and that the teaching was unchanged.
Note that the CDF didn’t say that they weren’t excommunicated, it said they were to be denied communion(part of excommunication). Then they said the teaching is unchanged, and since the previous teaching was that they were excommunicated, they say that they are still excommunicated.
Also, if Freemasons are just in a state of mortal sin, then that means that they would have to accept the Catholic Church’s teachings. Freemasonry’s theology is different than the Church. They believe in different stuff then we do.
At least I know what infallible means by it’s canonical definiion.Is that infallible?
Yet, infallibility can be changed by a later infallible declaration. In this case it has. As per the 1983 Code.Masons do not teach, and have never taught, that good works on Earth are a means of salvation in the afterlife. Masonic charity is practiced to improve the lives of men here and now.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Eminenti_Apostolatus
My understanding is that a Papal Bull is infallible if it is teaching on faith and morals. If so, this infallibly excommunicates Freemasons.
It is explicit. It said that the church teaching is unchanged(Am I misquoting this?)We can only judge by what’s on the page. This is a clarification. If excommunication was intended, it would have been explicitly stated.
No, it can’t. Church doctrine cannot change once infallibly stated. According to you, the whole chruch doctrine can be changed if the pope issues an ex cathedra pronouncing it false. We could be Muslims if the Pope says so.Yet, infallibility can be changed by a later infallible declaration. In this case it has. As per the 1983 Code.
"This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.It is explicit. It said that the church teaching is unchanged(Am I misquoting this?)
First of all, they are punishments, but they are designed so that the sinner may repent."This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."
The teaching is unchanged (it’s bad, it runs against Church teachings, don’t join), but it appears the response of the Church has changed. It would appear that formal excommunication (that done by the Church, I don’t know the correct term) no longer applies, but that a Catholic who continues to be apart of a Masonic lodge is excommunicating himself. We need to remember that excommunication and the denial of communion aren’t punishments.