So, i hear...

[CMatt25]

Yes, I did: “any and all of the above” = the Catholic Church in its various rites which express the One Faith.

Thank you so we are in agreement all Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t know and frankly don’t care how this subject came up. I know this thread didn’t start out this way.

I remember my younger days, not that long ago I am only 43, when I questioned everything the Church authority said. I know it’s not all that you question but you question. But like me, you not only question but speak out against the Church’s teachings and disciplines, now I see how wrong it was that I did.

The thing about it is, our Church works in centuries. I don’t mean that as a negative, it is good that we don’t change with the times, in fact it is imperative. How do you protect the truth if you change with the times?

This is what I wish I would have done when I went through my “questioning the Church” years; learn why we do what we do. Once I realized why priests are not married, or women are not ordained or only Catholics in good standing are to receive I see the biblical references to back up these disciplines and doctrines and now I have helped others to understand these as well. It matters what Catholics say about the Catholic Church much more than what others say. It may be some of the most meaningful words you will ever utter, negative or positive. They can be inviting words of knowledge and truth or words that convince people that the Church is wrong when she is most definitely not. If we believe that this is the Church of Jesus, then we also believe that He is in this Church. If we reject her we reject Him.

This is not about transubstantiation, or whether all one has to do is believe in Christ. Paul’s writings make these issues quite clear and you don’t need me to quote scripture.

My whole point in my posts is to invite Catholics like me and you to take the time and effort to educate those whom we want to invite in to receive, why it is important to come home and receive the entire truth, not just the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist without full knowledge will not bring anyone to Christ. As some have already stated on this thread, if you are a believer in Christ then that is all you need, faith is all it takes. (I am not a believer in faith alone btw.) So why would anyone want to come in to mass to receive the Eucharist then leave everything else the Church offers?

There are so many treasures in our Church, we are very fortunate to be a part of the Catholic Church and I will never be caught speaking against her again. Why, you may ask? Because our voice as Catholics matters much more than you can possibly realize.

We must be able to realize that we, individually that is, will not change anything with the prescribes of the Church. But what’s more important is that we can change the people, our brothers and sisters, around us and bring them to Christ in His Church. Isn’t that what is most important? You sited canon law in an earlier post, look at canon 1752. This is the last canon and the most important. We are going through canon law in diaconate formation right now, my third semester of canon law, my professor taught this one first. He was adamant about its importance.

CCL-1752
“…keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be supreme law.”

I hope you don’t see this as an attack, as that is not my motive. I am just stating why I stay here on Catholic Answers, and on this board, to help communicate the truth to all.

Lapey, the thread was here if you cared to see what was actually said. But I understand it is a long one and I too do not have the time to always read through an entire a thread.

From the history I have read, perhaps what I have read on this is wrong, but I thought the celibacy discipline became official in the Middle Ages and there were even married Popes and Popes who were parents but nevertheless were still able to perform their papal duties.

Lapey, my brother, do you believe Christ is with you wherever you are? So if you reject let us say the Lutheran church, do you then say Christ is not with our Lutheran brethren?
You might not set forth in a Lutheran church. But if He is with you always, would He not be there with you as well? If one rejects some of Catholicism, does that not mean Christ is still with them inside a Catholic church? Perhaps someone is called to receive Christ when they are in a Catholic Church is why they might want to receive…

Catholics often fail to understand Paul’s writings are not as clear as they like to think or else there would be no need for a “non-catholic religion” forum on CAF. Catholics often fail to or are simply unwilling to accept that their faith is just that. Faith. Belief.

I have some meat piza to eat now but will review your next post later.

 

[CMatt25]

There are ways of “de-Catholicizing” yourself officially. There is a misconception that one who is baptized Catholic is always a Catholic. But I know this is not what you are referring to. I hear what you say, but look at it from the Churches standpoint.

You are a Catholic criticizing the Catholic Church. This is like me criticizing my mother and expect my father not to chastise me, it will not happen. I have had my but whipped by my dad, thanks dad, for disrespecting my mother. There is no difference here.

I agree calling someone a “supposed Catholic” is over the top though.

Lapey, you are correct. That was not what I was referring to. Of course there are vast degrees of practice of Catholicism among Catholics. There would be no need for the confessional if this was not the case. And that is my point. Those who may perceive themselves as holiest devout Catholics confess to their priests exactly because even they do not live up to pure perfection as defined by the Catholic Church. Yet some desire to place these adjectives onto others like “supposed”. Seemingly attempting to tear the Catholic Church apart more than ever by attempting to make it “pure”. That saddens me greatly. We truly are just trying to follow in good conscience our informed consciences. Just because a Catholic might not agree with a particular thing does not mean they are uninformed of Church teaching. But perhaps after much prayer and contemplation with His Holy Spirit, they still can not submit to a particular item.

I am not sure though if you are refering to the formal act of defection. I know over time the Church has had to clarify what She has meant by this. And I know recently there has been some further tweaking. But it was my understanding after notification of the bishop, such an act would be noted on the Baptismal registry. And from what I have read, it’s only concrete effect was to further release the person from the ecclesiastical laws of Holy Matrimony. I have seen from a March 13, 2006 Pontifical Conference report to the Pontiff and with his acceptance, the following point,

**7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection. **

Perhaps unbeknownst to me this has been changed in the last 4 yrs?

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, you are correct. That was not what I was referring to. Of course there are vast degrees of practice of Catholicism among Catholics. There would be no need for the confessional if this was not the case. And that is my point. Those who may perceive themselves as holiest devout Catholics confess to their priests exactly because even they do not live up to pure perfection as defined by the Catholic Church. Yet some desire to place these adjectives onto others like “supposed”. Seemingly attempting to tear the Catholic Church apart more than ever by attempting to make it “pure”. That saddens me greatly. We truly are just trying to follow in good conscience our informed consciences. Just because a Catholic might not agree with a particular thing does not mean they are uninformed of Church teaching. But perhaps after much prayer and contemplation with His Holy Spirit, they still can not submit to a particular item.

I am not sure though if you are refering to the formal act of defection. I know over time the Church has had to clarify what She has meant by this. And I know recently there has been some further tweaking. But it was my understanding after notification of the bishop, such an act would be noted on the Baptismal registry. And from what I have read, it’s only concrete effect was to further release the person from the ecclesiastical laws of Holy Matrimony. I have seen from a March 13, 2006 Pontifical Conference report to the Pontiff and with his acceptance, the following point,

**7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection. **

Perhaps unbeknownst to me this has been changed in the last 4 yrs?

According to my studies and the understanding of the Canon Law specialist I study under, if a Catholic makes a public proclamation such as being baptized in another faith or public renunciation of the Catholic Church that person is no longer in communion or catholic.

Now with a public acknowledgment and profession of faith after a proper faith formation that person can be brought back in to full communion. An excommunicated Catholic is outside of the Church, it’s that simple. Are they still technically Catholic, I really don’t care. Anyone can say they are Catholic, even people who claim to be Catholic and know more than the typical close minded Catholics who believe in the real presence as Jesus taught and John wrote about ion the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel.

Even people who refer to the Eucharist as a wafer can be brought back in, if they learn the truth.

 

[CMatt25]

According to my studies and the understanding of the Canon Law specialist I study under, if a Catholic makes a public proclamation such as being baptized in another faith or public renunciation of the Catholic Church that person is no longer in communion or catholic.

Now with a public acknowledgment and profession of faith after a proper faith formation that person can be brought back in to full communion. An excommunicated Catholic is outside of the Church, it’s that simple. Are they still technically Catholic, I really don’t care. Anyone can say they are Catholic, even people who claim to be Catholic and know more than the typical close minded Catholics who believe in the real presence as Jesus taught and John wrote about ion the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel.

Even people who refer to the Eucharist as a wafer can be brought back in, if they learn the truth.

Lapey, first of all many Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism just as our Church accepts theirs so there is not always a need for somone to be re-baptized.

But more importantly and more to the point. You are playing semantics, you know it, and I will not play your game. You are confusing being in some sort of “full communion” with otherwise being “outside” as if this makes one not a Catholic. I trust you know Canon Law though and I presume your “specialist” does as well. You both then know full well for instance excommunicated Catholics are told not to receive the Sacraments but are still as you put it, technically Catholic.

It is sad you do not care.

I can’t wait to see how you have twisted my words on the Eucharist thread.

 

[CMatt25]

According to my studies and the understanding of the Canon Law specialist I study under, if a Catholic makes a public proclamation such as being baptized in another faith or public renunciation of the Catholic Church that person is no longer in communion or catholic.

Now with a public acknowledgment and profession of faith after a proper faith formation that person can be brought back in to full communion. An excommunicated Catholic is outside of the Church, it’s that simple. Are they still technically Catholic, I really don’t care. Anyone can say they are Catholic, even people who claim to be Catholic and know more than the typical close minded Catholics who believe in the real presence as Jesus taught and John wrote about ion the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel.

Even people who refer to the Eucharist as a wafer can be brought back in, if they learn the truth.

Lapey, first of all many Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism just as our Church accepts theirs so there is not always a need for somone to be re-baptized.

But more importantly and more to the point. You are playing semantics, you know it, and I will not play your game. You are confusing being in some sort of “full communion” with otherwise being “outside” as if this makes one not a Catholic. I trust you know Canon Law though and I presume your “specialist” does as well. You both then know full well for instance excommunicated Catholics are told not to receive the Sacraments but are still as you put it, technically Catholic.

It is sad you do not care.

I can’t wait to see how you have twisted my words on the Eucharist thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can’t wait to see how you have twisted my words on the Eucharist thread.

Where you talked about bashers?

Baiting, or antagonizing, is no different than bashing, in my opinion.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, first of all many Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism just as our Church accepts theirs so there is not always a need for somone to be re-baptized.

But more importantly and more to the point. You are playing semantics, you know it, and I will not play your game. You are confusing being in some sort of “full communion” with otherwise being “outside” as if this makes one not a Catholic. I trust you know Canon Law though and I presume your “specialist” does as well. You both then know full well for instance excommunicated Catholics are told not to receive the Sacraments but are still as you put it, technically Catholic.

It is sad you do not care.

I can’t wait to see how you have twisted my words on the Eucharist thread.

It is sad that you cant see the truth.

The comment I made that i dont care was to the fact that people who are no longer Catholic call their self Catholic. Many who have been excommunicated from the Church remain outside of the Church and are no longer Catholic but they consider theirself catholic. The little “c” was intended.

The expert you question is a canonist, a priest who’s job in the diocese is to keep the law straight. He advises the bishop in all matters under the Caon Law of the Church prescribes for Latin Rite Catholics, do you want to teach him as you are teaching me?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t know and frankly don’t care how this subject came up. I know this thread didn’t start out this way.

I remember my younger days, not that long ago I am only 43, when I questioned everything the Church authority said. I know it’s not all that you question but you question. But like me, you not only question but speak out against the Church’s teachings and disciplines, now I see how wrong it was that I did.

The thing about it is, our Church works in centuries. I don’t mean that as a negative, it is good that we don’t change with the times, in fact it is imperative. How do you protect the truth if you change with the times?

This is what I wish I would have done when I went through my “questioning the Church” years; learn why we do what we do. Once I realized why priests are not married, or women are not ordained or only Catholics in good standing are to receive I see the biblical references to back up these disciplines and doctrines and now I have helped others to understand these as well. It matters what Catholics say about the Catholic Church much more than what others say. It may be some of the most meaningful words you will ever utter, negative or positive. They can be inviting words of knowledge and truth or words that convince people that the Church is wrong when she is most definitely not. If we believe that this is the Church of Jesus, then we also believe that He is in this Church. If we reject her we reject Him.

This is not about transubstantiation, or whether all one has to do is believe in Christ. Paul’s writings make these issues quite clear and you don’t need me to quote scripture.

My whole point in my posts is to invite Catholics like me and you to take the time and effort to educate those whom we want to invite in to receive, why it is important to come home and receive the entire truth, not just the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist without full knowledge will not bring anyone to Christ. As some have already stated on this thread, if you are a believer in Christ then that is all you need, faith is all it takes. (I am not a believer in faith alone btw.) So why would anyone want to come in to mass to receive the Eucharist then leave everything else the Church offers?

There are so many treasures in our Church, we are very fortunate to be a part of the Catholic Church and I will never be caught speaking against her again. Why, you may ask? Because our voice as Catholics matters much more than you can possibly realize.

We must be able to realize that we, individually that is, will not change anything with the prescribes of the Church. But what’s more important is that we can change the people, our brothers and sisters, around us and bring them to Christ in His Church. Isn’t that what is most important? You sited canon law in an earlier post, look at canon 1752. This is the last canon and the most important. We are going through canon law in diaconate formation right now, my third semester of canon law, my professor taught this one first. He was adamant about its importance.

CCL-1752
“…keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be supreme law.”

I hope you don’t see this as an attack, as that is not my motive. I am just stating why I stay here on Catholic Answers, and on this board, to help communicate the truth to all.

**
Amen!**

 

[wisdomseeker]

Lapey, first of all many Protestant churches accept a Catholic baptism just as our Church accepts theirs so there is not always a need for somone to be re-baptized.

But more importantly and more to the point. You are playing semantics, you know it, and I will not play your game. You are confusing being in some sort of “full communion” with otherwise being “outside” as if this makes one not a Catholic. I trust you know Canon Law though and I presume your “specialist” does as well. You both then know full well for instance excommunicated Catholics are told not to receive the Sacraments but are still as you put it, technically Catholic.

It is sad you do not care.

I can’t wait to see how you have twisted my words on the Eucharist thread.

this is a really nice video.

youtube.com/watch?v=rLWEE3H_sdo

 

[CMatt25]

I do not desire to bait nor antagonize but will only post this.

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

This notification was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, who directed that it be transmitted to all Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

Your Excellency:

For quite some time, a considerable number of Bishops, Judicial Vicars and others working in the field of canon law have been posing to this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification …

(To save space I will again take you to the point)

1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

I thought many of my Catholic brothers and sisters define the Body of Christ that is the (Capital “C”) Church as the Catholic Church.

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any** ministerial participation **in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ **to celebrate the sacraments **or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Not to minister at Mass, receive sacraments, nor hold a position of office. So perhaps excommunicated, not fully practicing, but nevertheless Catholic.

Any further problems with it and I suggest you take your disagreement with it to the Church and not me. Peace.

.

 

[Lapey]

I do not desire to bait nor antagonize but will only post this.

Vatican City, 13 March 2006

This notification was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, who directed that it be transmitted to all Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

Your Excellency:

For quite some time, a considerable number of Bishops, Judicial Vicars and others working in the field of canon law have been posing to this Pontifical Council questions and requests for clarification …

(To save space I will again take you to the point)

1. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

I thought many of my Catholic brothers and sisters define the Body of Christ that is the (Capital “C”) Church as the Catholic Church.

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any** ministerial participation **in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ **to celebrate the sacraments **or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

Not to minister at Mass, receive sacraments, nor hold a position of office. So perhaps excommunicated, not fully practicing, but nevertheless Catholic.

Any further problems with it and I suggest you take your disagreement with it to the Church and not me. Peace.

.

I am not here to argue this point, ok I give you are correct. Even though you denounce the truth, you are technically still Catholic. Now it is up to the person to make changes to come back into communion with the Church or they are outside of the Church. It doesn’t matter what you bring up, someone who is excommunicated is on the outside looking in.

This was not the crux of this thread, so you and all your knowledge need to chill.

As you say, you can take all your heretical beliefs of the Eucharist to the Church and not me. When you can manage to get off your, “I got you now” soap box look at it again. You may call it semantics, but outside is outside.

Until an excommunication is lifted, which happens most often after a person is deceased, he is outside the Church. Maybe we can call them homeless Catholics.

Now, a wafer? I had that thrown in my face before by a JW. I reacted as I did with you. Once again I remind you words matter.

 

[CMatt25]

I am not here to argue this point, ok I give you are correct. Even though you denounce the truth, you are technically still Catholic. Now it is up to the person to make changes to come back into communion with the Church or they are outside of the Church. It doesn’t matter what you bring up, someone who is excommunicated is on the outside looking in.

This was not the crux of this thread, so you and all your knowledge need to chill.

As you say, you can take all your heretical beliefs of the Eucharist to the Church and not me. When you can manage to get off your, “I got you now” soap box look at it again. You may call it semantics, but outside is outside.

Until an excommunication is lifted, which happens most often after a person is deceased, he is outside the Church. Maybe we can call them homeless Catholics.

Now, a wafer? I had that thrown in my face before by a JW. I reacted as I did with you. Once again I remind you words matter.

You’re not here to argue? Interesting because right after you agree I am Catholic you then start again arguing about it with your semantics. You say I am a Catholic but no wait outside.

I have no way of knowing what is in another’s heart before they are deceased. But if you do Lapey, then more power to ya.

I’ve addressed you on the other thread though so I will say no more here to you about this. Peace.

 

[larkin31]

Where you talked about bashers?

Baiting, or antagonizing, is no different than bashing, in my opinion.

It’s not “baiting” to disagree.

 

[Lapey]

You’re not here to argue? Interesting because right after you agree I am Catholic you then start again arguing about it with your semantics. You say I am a Catholic but no wait outside.

I have no way of knowing what is in another’s heart before they are deceased. But if you do Lapey, then more power to ya.

I’ve addressed you on the other thread though so I will say no more here to you about this. Peace.

What’s in another’s heart is not my decision or yours. My comment here was what the Church generally does, not you or I. Who is twisting words?

 

[CMatt25]

What’s in another’s heart is not my decision or yours. My comment here was what the Church generally does, not you or I. Who is twisting words?

Lapey, thank you for pointing this out. When I have misread a post I am at least fair enough to fess up. And after rereading what you said about a deceased person I see you were speaking of the Church lifting excommunications after people are deceased and not you. No twisting on my behalf meant.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What is “a relativistic approach to faith”?

a lack of objective Truth. the idea that no one have the Truth. the Truth becomes oh, well, it does not matter which Truth one hold on to it. my truth is just as good as yours. this kind of thought. the idea that we must agree to dissagree. the idea that you are ok where you. there is no Church that holds the Truth. we all know the Truth although we have an opposite belief in the same issue. Truth no longer matters as long as we all get along. non Catholics uses the name of Jesus against the CC and Catholics agree with it.

"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it" St ignatious of Loyola

 

[larkin31]

a lack of objective Truth…

Do you mean the scriptures? The Christian scriptures?

 

[CMatt25]

a lack of objective Truth. the idea that no one have the Truth. the Truth becomes oh, well, it does not matter which Truth one hold on to it. my truth is just as good as yours. this kind of thought. the idea that we must agree to dissagree. the idea that you are ok where you. there is no Church that holds the Truth. we all know the Truth although we have an opposite belief in the same issue. Truth no longer matters as long as we all get along. non Catholics uses the name of Jesus against the CC and Catholics agree with it.

Your characterization is not exactly correct in respect to Christians. Since Christians follow Christ and He tells us in Jn 14:6, I am the truth. Their belief in Christ is not opposite belief. I’m not sure anyone is saying there is not one Truth. I know I’m not. You do understand though the difference between the words believing, faith, and knowing, don’t you? You do understand don’t you there is a difference between you believing only you have the truth on every single issue vs presuming to know as a fallible human that only you have everything figured out correctly with 100% absolute certainty that only you are right?

Regardless of how glorious you might imagine heaven and God to be, can your human mind truly fathom exactly how glorious until we are at home in heaven with Him?

 

[Lapey]

Lapey, thank you for pointing this out. When I have misread a post I am at least fair enough to fess up. And after rereading what you said about a deceased person I see you were speaking of the Church lifting excommunications after people are deceased and not you. No twisting on my behalf meant.

You are welcome, and i agree, when we misinterpret another’s post we should fess up.