P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. My bad.
So Cornelius didn’t have saving faith? If he died immediately after the angel’s appearance, you believe he could not have been saved?
The Catholic Church and religious coercion- the smoking gun 2
- Status
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I’m not explaining anything away. I just don’t see this as any sort of “smoking gun” against the Church. Or I suppose another way to put it is that IF there is a smoking Catholic gun it is part of a pair of smoking dueling pistols. The reformers were just as coercive during the same time period. I’m just not seeing a real issue here. I suppose it would become an issue if Catholic monarchies sprung up across the Western Hemisphere overnight or something. Barring that, what coercive steps other than denying the sacraments could the Church take against an unrepentant walk-away?
Peace,
Robert
C
Contarini
Guest
Here’s where the rubber hits the road, as someone who was in RCIA all last year and then, yet again, chickened out:
In 2015, as a prospective convert from Protestantism, I am expected to stop receiving communion with my Protestant fellow-Christians, and to accept not only that no Protestant clergy are validly ordained (well, except for those who are ex-Catholic or Orthodox priests!) but that the women among them are ontologically incapable of being ordained. If I challenge this I am told that I need to submit to the authority of the Church.
100 years ago I would have been expected to submit to a discipline whereby I could not worship with Protestants, even non-sacramentally. While I get that this was discipline, not doctrine, it was rooted in doctrinal claims (indeed, some on this forum seem to think that the discipline is still in effect) and if I had challenged it I would have been told that I should submit to the authority of the Church.
500 years ago I would have been expected to accept not only that Protestants are going to hell, but that they are justly punished with civil penalties, up to and including the death penalty in some cases. And if I had demurred I would have been told to submit to the authority of the Church.
Looking back at the things I would once have been expected to submit to, but am not now, I am not encouraged by the evidence of history to accept that the things I am now being asked to submit to just are the perennial teaching of the Church and that Christ is asking me to submit to these things.
Edwin
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Dr. Tait-
As a history professor specializing in the Reformation era, would you agree that 500 years ago, the Catholic Church was attempting to put out what it viewed as a wildfire of heresy that was threatening to scorch much of Catholic Europe? Would that justify some of what happened in response to the actions of Protestants? How would you have counselled the Church to respond to what happened to Catholic institutions, priests and laity in England, for example?
Further, would you agree that 500 years ago, Protestants were, in the eyes of the Catholic hierarchy, formal heretics and not merely material heretics? And if so, would you also agree that this is a significant distinction?
E
Easter_Joey
Guest
In my opinion this isn’t how it should be interpreted because why would it be wrong to retake baptismal vows when we do that at baptisms or the sprinkling rite?The Church (via the Council) is anathematizing the entire statement. To me, it means that the Church (via the Council) is saying it’s wrong to even ask anyone to retake their Baptismal vows when they grow up (because it would cast doubts on Catholic Baptism). So logic tells me, that there are no penalties involved, whatsoever. Those penalties (suggested by those who want people to retake their vows) were to be applied if someone refused to retake their vows. But, you can’t really punish someone for refusing to do something you never asked them to do, can you? Then, why do people keep insisting that the Church might want to punish them, anyway?
E
Easter_Joey
Guest
I was intentionally being vague since I don’t know the specifics for how something like the canon suggests would be implemented in today’s world.
And if the canon wasn’t meant to necessitate penalties for all times, then I don’t know why this is controversial at all, at least concerning what the Church believes. Can. 1311: The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.
As an aside, I think this thread should be supplemented by a reading of Dignitatis Humanae, which further develops the role of the state in how it should create a just Christian society.
T
Telstar
Guest
I’m a little confused about what you mean by that (in bold).
I’m only considering what this canon (actually, ANTI-canon) is referring to. Within the Catholic Church at that time, there were some people who wanted the Church to officially require anyone Baptized as children to retake, or ‘ratify’, their Baptismal vows, after they grew up. The whole proposal is declared to be heretical. If the Church agrees to do it, what does it say about the Church Baptizing babies in the first place? It basically implies that the babies are not really Baptized, so something more needs to be done when they grow up, to make it “real”.
This is a ridiculous proposal if the babies have already received the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church. There’s no reason to question them when they grow up. Once someone is Baptized by the Catholic Church, they are Baptized, forever. There is no such thing as a “do-over” of a Catholic Sacrament, once it’s been done.
This canon has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone choosing to walk away from the Church. It’s not a canon on apostasy. That’s a totally different subject. It’s a canon on Baptism, that’s listed in a whole section of anathemas that specifically address the Sacrament of Baptism. More specifically, it’s a proposal (made by Catholics in the Church) that suggested a change should be made in Church practice, to require anyone Baptized as a child to ‘ratify’ their vows in some kind of formal ceremony. Why? Because people outside of the Church were causing many Catholics to have doubts about the validity of infant Baptism. The Church proclaimed it to be heresy for anyone to question the validity of infant Baptism. The Council refused to make any change that would require any retaking, or ratifying of vows. Therefore, any penalties mentioned in that proposal, are completely null and void.
Another thing that makes this entire proposal totally ridiculous, is the Sacrament of Confirmation. Those being Confirmed are required to reaffirm (not retake) their Baptismal promises, that were made by their sponsors as part of that Sacrament. So, that just makes this entire proposal even more redundant redundant. Is there really any wonder why this whole thing was declared to be heretical, and entirely unnecessary?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Thread re-started.
Carry on.
Carry on.
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
You’ve said there were “some people” who “wanted the Church to officially require” something, and you seem to think that thing involves making the baptism more “real.” I have a few comments about this.I’m a little confused about what you mean by that (in bold).
I’m only considering what this canon (actually, ANTI-canon) is referring to. Within the Catholic Church at that time, there were some people who wanted the Church to officially require anyone Baptized as children to retake, or ‘ratify’, their Baptismal vows, after they grew up. The whole proposal is declared to be heretical. If the Church agrees to do it, what does it say about the Church Baptizing babies in the first place? It basically implies that the babies are not really Baptized, so something more needs to be done when they grow up, to make it “real”.
This is a ridiculous proposal if the babies have already received the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church. There’s no reason to question them when they grow up. Once someone is Baptized by the Catholic Church, they are Baptized, forever. There is no such thing as a “do-over” of a Catholic Sacrament, once it’s been done.
This canon has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone choosing to walk away from the Church. It’s not a canon on apostasy. That’s a totally different subject. It’s a canon on Baptism, that’s listed in a whole section of anathemas that specifically address the Sacrament of Baptism. More specifically, it’s a proposal (made by Catholics in the Church) that suggested a change should be made in Church practice, to require anyone Baptized as a child to ‘ratify’ their vows in some kind of formal ceremony. Why? Because people outside of the Church were causing many Catholics to have doubts about the validity of infant Baptism. The Church proclaimed it to be heresy for anyone to question the validity of infant Baptism. The Council refused to make any change that would require any retaking, or ratifying of vows. Therefore, any penalties mentioned in that proposal, are completely null and void.
Another thing that makes this entire proposal totally ridiculous, is the Sacrament of Confirmation. Those being Confirmed are required to reaffirm (not retake) their Baptismal promises, that were made by their sponsors as part of that Sacrament. So, that just makes this entire proposal even more redundant redundant. Is there really any wonder why this whole thing was declared to be heretical, and entirely unnecessary?
First, it technically was “some people,” but it a more official capacity it was Erasmus. I posted a link from the Catholic Encyclopedia indicating that. Second, his goal was Not to have the Church make it a requirement for everyone, he wanted it to be optional. He wanted people to be free to ratify or reject a Christian life in general or a Catholic one in particular. This is what’s condemned, as the opinion of the Church (albeit a solemn one) was that we don’t just let people walk away.
“It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult.” newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Do you see what’s happening here? A Catholic reformer says that when people are adults, they should be free to believe what they want without temporal penalty (although he also has this whole program he’s proposed where people are encouraged, but not forced, to learn and then publicly state all the important articles of Catholic belief and affirm them in a celebratory ceremony- but yeah, grown adults are free to decide not to be a part of it). Anyway, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the stated reason for the Erasmus-directed anathema is that he favored a certain type of freedom for Catholic adults. That is what’s condemned.
Once again, Erasmus did not want the Church to place requirements on adults. He wanted freedom for adults, and the Church clearly wanted the other thing.
C
Contarini
Guest
Of course.
Religious persecution of heretics long predated the Reformation. It would be much more reasonable to argue that the violent rhetoric of the Protestants was partly justified by the coercive and arrogant behavior of the Church for centuries. Luther was, initially, condemned in part because he said that heretics shouldn’t be burned. Heretics were not burned because of Protestantism. Protestantism was considered heresy in part because it said heretics shouldn’t be burned.
Now Protestants greatly exaggerate this, turn Luther into a champion of freedom, and so on. Protestantism was not primarily a reaction to religious coercion, but religious coercion did long predate Protestantism and partly explains why the explosion, when it came, was so violent.
If something like the condemned canon had been in place all along–if the Church had not tried to use the state to coerce the entire civilization into being Catholic–then there might have been no “wildfire.”
Or there might. Counterfactuals are tricky
Which of course followed the brutal persecution and execution of early Protestants, and of Lollards before them. . . .
I would say, “let’s follow Jesus in nonviolent witness, and accept that we have brought this situation on ourselves.”
But your question makes little sense, chronologically.
It isn’t a distinction, to my knowledge, that Catholics made in this connection until the 19th century. I may be wrong about the date, but I’m fairly certain that for a century or two after the Reformation generations of people who had grown up as Protestants were still seen as sharing the guilt of heresy.
Be that as it may, I am also pretty convinced that many/most of the Protestant Reformers were sincerely trying to follow Christ, and thus were not “formal heretics” in the morally relevant sense either. I am not particularly mollified by the common modern Catholic distinction between the original Reformers and contemporary Protestants.
If William Tyndale was not saved, then I don’t see a lot of hope for the rest of us. I am not particularly impressed by an “ecumenical” stance that invites me to accept that my family may be saved (I am happy about that much, of course) but that people like Tyndale, Bilney, Latimer, etc. (deliberately focusing on people who were actually killed for their Protestant beliefs, and not on more ambiguous and successful figures like Luther and Calvin) went to hell. I was brought up to think of those guys as saints. I still do. I am not going to take any step that would require me to stop doing so.
Edwin
I
Ignatius
Guest
That’s your smoking gun, a council from 500 years ago? In case you aren’t familiar with the “smoking gun” colloquialism, the implication is that something has recently transpired. Something from 500 years ago is simply not a smoking gun.
I’m sorry, but if you want an in depth discussion, get something from a something where the people involved can argue the point with you.
It might be easier to win an argument with people who are 500 years dead because they can’t argue back, but it is really intellectually dishonest.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Erasmus is simply not quotable on these as a final decision because he wavered in various positions in order to explore academic concepts, until near his death:
I think you are reading it out of context.
Luther doesn’t want freedom for adults, neither does Calvin or Zwingli nor Henry… they want their view promoted, any opposition quelled. Erasmus did not want requirements placed on adults because he didn’t want requirements placed on himself. He always preferred to keep moving and not attached to anything or anyone, including his allies.
Z
Z_Ninja
Guest
The problem is, at the time, most State governments were controlled or followed the Church, so this would allow those on one side say, “since it was mostly a Church controlled state, it was the Church imposing its penalties on Civil and ecclesiastical crimes.” with no distinction between Church and State matters.
If I understand correctly, the argument is over, “CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”
Telstar has, I believe, explained it exceptionally well.
The first part, “those who have been thus baptized when children… to be asked…”
When a child who was baptized grows up, they shouldn’t even be asked about their faith.
"in case they answer that they will not… ",
but if you do ask and they answer they left the Church, don’t leave them alone but help them to lead a Christian life, not just by exclusion from the Eucharist and other sacraments, you are now responsible for leading them back to a Christian life through other penalties.
In my opinion, it looks like don’t even ask, but if you ask then it is now your responsibility to make sure they lead a Christian life, this includes letting the person know they cannot receive the sacraments, but you will not condone any of their un-Christianlike behavior, until they truly repent and return to the Church.
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
Telstar has, I believe, explained it in a way that has been torn to shreds repeatedly, and the closest thing to a proper citation that she’s offered has been an angel whispering in her ear.
Thing is, though, this isn’t exactly about your opinion or Telstar’s opinion or the opinion of her imaginary angel friend. It’s about what the Church anathemizes, and what the Church says about its own authority. I have given a citation, and despite how many times we’ve gone in circles, none of the Catholics here have touched it. I’ll run it past for a third time.
“The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult.”
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent defines the doctrine of infant baptism (by way of a negative, in its anathemas) and then the condemnation of canon xiv has to do with Erasmus’ idea that those baptized in infancy should be left free to ratify or reject things without coercive penalty once they are adults. I am still waiting for Telstar (or those of a similar mindset) to talk about this, to read into the canon the same things as the Catholic Encyclopedia, or for goodness’ sake to cite something better than an angel in your ear. Come on, people.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
We have a former Lutheran now Catholic in charge of a particular branch of faith formation, – put it like that.
The person has been pretty much dismantling points I try to make…just getting back out into parish work after a long, 20 plus years raising kids, a frail father, and relatives in hard times.
This person told us that the visiting priest found out that h/she did not believe in baptizing infants in essence, and to let them find out on their own. In a different mode, I answered that we needed to rebuild our church after so many errors following Vatican II. I was asked what defines a Catholic…'one…we are in communion…holy, Catholic/universal, and apostolic.
The apostles baptized entire households. So our practice of baptizing infants is the same tradition as the apostles’.
It is duty, and in past of godparents, to help raise the child in faith.
But the Church never forces…it always recognizes free will, one of the traits that make us into the image of God, and the Church always proposes. We are all predestined for heaven…all mankind…but we have free will to deny such a great grace of reunion with God in heaven.
And when we enter a church, we renew our baptismal promises with the sign of the Cross blessing ourselves with the sacramental of holy water.
When a person has been brought up in the faith and fully and willfully refuses their baptism, they are no longer part of the Church. The Church is always forgiving and of course one may return, but they must go into adult faith formation under their pastor. However, being re-baptized is not necessary.
There were many Catholics who remained faithful to the Church who, nevertheless, had erroneous ideas, and the Council of Trent corrected them. The Gutenberg Press was used by the Catholic Church to have one identical form to follow liturgy, the Roman Missal, in effect up to 1965.
A special thank you to Telstar…as Catholicism is always about context, context, context as our Regent Theologian instructs us.
The person has been pretty much dismantling points I try to make…just getting back out into parish work after a long, 20 plus years raising kids, a frail father, and relatives in hard times.
This person told us that the visiting priest found out that h/she did not believe in baptizing infants in essence, and to let them find out on their own. In a different mode, I answered that we needed to rebuild our church after so many errors following Vatican II. I was asked what defines a Catholic…'one…we are in communion…holy, Catholic/universal, and apostolic.
The apostles baptized entire households. So our practice of baptizing infants is the same tradition as the apostles’.
It is duty, and in past of godparents, to help raise the child in faith.
But the Church never forces…it always recognizes free will, one of the traits that make us into the image of God, and the Church always proposes. We are all predestined for heaven…all mankind…but we have free will to deny such a great grace of reunion with God in heaven.
And when we enter a church, we renew our baptismal promises with the sign of the Cross blessing ourselves with the sacramental of holy water.
When a person has been brought up in the faith and fully and willfully refuses their baptism, they are no longer part of the Church. The Church is always forgiving and of course one may return, but they must go into adult faith formation under their pastor. However, being re-baptized is not necessary.
There were many Catholics who remained faithful to the Church who, nevertheless, had erroneous ideas, and the Council of Trent corrected them. The Gutenberg Press was used by the Catholic Church to have one identical form to follow liturgy, the Roman Missal, in effect up to 1965.
A special thank you to Telstar…as Catholicism is always about context, context, context as our Regent Theologian instructs us.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Badnewsbarrett-- I agree with the essence of your post, but I also think you’re being kind of rough in a counterproductive way.
I, too, though would appreciate a response from Telstar to the evidence that’s been offered, which I think definitively shows she’s misunderstanding the second part of the canon under discussion.
Just speaking for myself, the posts by Catholics who have followed, and continue to follow, Telstar’s opinion in all its parts have been pretty discouraging to me. I think the evidence, which has been offered repeatedly now, is clear enough that there’s no need to misunderstand the canon. So when people continue to ignore the evidence, it frankly diminishes their credibility for me; and that’s discouraging to me because I’m not here at CAF for debates and arguments, but to read information which is given in an intellectually sound way.
D
dronald
Guest
From what I’ve read in this thread, it seems there’s one specific question that needs to be answered by both sides. What does the bold mean?
** “they are to be left to their own will**; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”
Basically, what is “Any other penalty” and what does it mean to be anathemized by leaving said person “to their own will.”?
I don’t think this has really been answered by anyone besides using speculation because of the ambiguity of this text; so all we can really do is read it in the context of its own time.
I for one would argue that perhaps it was referring to the penalties laid out in the Fourth Lateran Council?
** “they are to be left to their own will**; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.”
Basically, what is “Any other penalty” and what does it mean to be anathemized by leaving said person “to their own will.”?
I don’t think this has really been answered by anyone besides using speculation because of the ambiguity of this text; so all we can really do is read it in the context of its own time.
I for one would argue that perhaps it was referring to the penalties laid out in the Fourth Lateran Council?
- On Heretics:We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under… Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment…The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated,…If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province…he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them.
be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, **be punished by another suitable penalty.
**
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Not really. He’s arguing that it is a smoking gun because it was an ecumenical council and it was in the canons of the council. The Church has always proclaimed that such councils invoke the power of the Holy Spirit to protect from error, and as such they are everlasting truths that come forth from them. They are considered part of the (I believe) extraordinary magisterium.
This is why this particular canon is problematic, along with others (for instance, there is a canon that states burning heretics is not opposed to the Holy Spirit, meaning that it is permissible). This was proclaimed an infallible truth, and induced anathemas. God does not change, truth does not change, so why do these canons no longer apply?
It’s actually a good question. My answer would be that it may have been a disciplinary canon, specifically relating to that moment in time (such as the decree from Acts chapter 15 not to eat blood or strangled animal meat). But I’m not sure if that is correct or if a canon that merely invokes discipline is a real thing. It might not even be considered infallible for all I know. It could just be authoritative. But then how do we distinguish between infallible canons (like Mary being the Theotokos from Chalcedon) and authoritative ones, like Acts 15 and this one from Trent? I have no idea…
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
I agree with this. There is quite a bit of misreading of the canon. I did it myself at first, but understood after a second read through. It condemns not those who say that there should be required renewal of vows and that punishment should not be limited, but those who say that there should be optional renewal of vows and only exclusion from the Sacraments.
Maybe people who have been arguing otherwise should reread it.
*note that this doesn’t mean I’m siding against the Church, but rather the improper reading of the canon.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
We believe in infant baptism.
I had my children baptized as soon as possible. I wanted them to enter into the life of Christ from their beginning days of life…because God is the source of life and all that is good. Why deny them this grace of baptism?
Yes, many children of Catholic homes have lost their faith, irregardless of the work of parents and schools. The secular world and its media is most powerful and overwhelming. And with the imposition of the world on our young, I believe God as well knows how difficult it is for them to remain faithful, not live by sight but in Christ, especially as the secular world demands so much of our day to day attention and duty.
It is one thing to fully face the fullness of faith in Christ through the Church, and then reject it. It is another for those who have been intently mislead and their faith and trust in religion invalidated and destroyed.
Today is Mother’s Day and so many of us are praying for our children ‘to come home’.
Vatican I and Vatican II do not invalidate the Council of Trent. They continue to help us understand our faith and living it out in the times we live with. So many Catholics are somehow thinking the Council of Trent is now abrogated from our present Council. Each council is as a foundation or stepping stone for the next Council.
I remember about 20 years ago lay people in professional ministry stating they did not want the Catholic Catechism of the Church to be given to the laity for reading. Every doctrine of faith, over 2800 of them, are beautifully and richly presented in the beauty of faith and faith in Christ. More laity and Protestants as well should get a copy.
Start with the Prologue that gives you the context in how we understand God, how we approach Sacred Scripture…and then go through the doctrines, one by one, how each builds to the other to get the context of our faith.
We who claim we are Catholic should not willfully seek to dissent from any doctrine as we then are decreasing the fullness of Christ among us, especially those who have professional teaching positions in our parishes.
I think it best the lay … instead of going through possible dissenting catechists…need to get copies of themselves, meditate on each doctrine, especially in a small faith group…and then pray and see how the Holy Spirit will individually lead each on in living out their Catholic faith. Different than reading articles and reflections from others. Same with bishops who decide on issues within their own diocese that end up in communion with Rome, rather than with episcopal conferences…where they then vote differently.
We all need to work on the purity of our Catholic faith.
I had my children baptized as soon as possible. I wanted them to enter into the life of Christ from their beginning days of life…because God is the source of life and all that is good. Why deny them this grace of baptism?
Yes, many children of Catholic homes have lost their faith, irregardless of the work of parents and schools. The secular world and its media is most powerful and overwhelming. And with the imposition of the world on our young, I believe God as well knows how difficult it is for them to remain faithful, not live by sight but in Christ, especially as the secular world demands so much of our day to day attention and duty.
It is one thing to fully face the fullness of faith in Christ through the Church, and then reject it. It is another for those who have been intently mislead and their faith and trust in religion invalidated and destroyed.
Today is Mother’s Day and so many of us are praying for our children ‘to come home’.
Vatican I and Vatican II do not invalidate the Council of Trent. They continue to help us understand our faith and living it out in the times we live with. So many Catholics are somehow thinking the Council of Trent is now abrogated from our present Council. Each council is as a foundation or stepping stone for the next Council.
I remember about 20 years ago lay people in professional ministry stating they did not want the Catholic Catechism of the Church to be given to the laity for reading. Every doctrine of faith, over 2800 of them, are beautifully and richly presented in the beauty of faith and faith in Christ. More laity and Protestants as well should get a copy.
Start with the Prologue that gives you the context in how we understand God, how we approach Sacred Scripture…and then go through the doctrines, one by one, how each builds to the other to get the context of our faith.
We who claim we are Catholic should not willfully seek to dissent from any doctrine as we then are decreasing the fullness of Christ among us, especially those who have professional teaching positions in our parishes.
I think it best the lay … instead of going through possible dissenting catechists…need to get copies of themselves, meditate on each doctrine, especially in a small faith group…and then pray and see how the Holy Spirit will individually lead each on in living out their Catholic faith. Different than reading articles and reflections from others. Same with bishops who decide on issues within their own diocese that end up in communion with Rome, rather than with episcopal conferences…where they then vote differently.
We all need to work on the purity of our Catholic faith.
- Status