N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Please quote the official teaching that shows that excommunication is the same thing as ceasing to be Catholic.
- Status
V
Victor_Claveau
Guest
Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.
CCC 2089 “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
CCC 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Excommunication: A severe ecclesiastical penalty, resulting from grave crimes against the Catholic religion, imposed by ecclesiastical authority or incurred as a direct result of the commission of an offense. Excommunication excludes the offender from taking part in the Eucharist or other sacraments and from the exercise of any ecclesiastical office, ministry, or function (CCC: Glossary).
Heresy: “As a sin heresy consists in the formal denial of doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith; as a crime it consists in the outward and pertinacious manifestation of the sin. Anyone guilty of the crime of heresy incurs excommunication ipso facto, specially reserved to the pope in the internal forum; in the external forum the local ordinary can absolve the sin.” A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Atwatter, The Macmillian Company, New York, p. 239. Imprimatur: Archbishop Patrick Cardinal Hayes, New York.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
You prove my point-canon law only applies to those who are a part of the church-if excommunication actually caused one to cease to be Catholic, canon law would no longer apply and the person would need to join the church anew. The fact that there is canon law for the excommunicated shows they are considered to still be Catholic, albeit in bad standing.
With that out of the way, you might want to consider asking gurney’s pardon for your mistaken attempt to deCatholicize him.
D
distracted
Guest
D
distracted
Guest
you totally missed the point John is trying to make here. He is not speaking in past tense when he speaks of the blood of Christ. He is speaking present tense to the reader. when he says the blood of Jesus he is refering to the cross. If we follow verse 7 the blood of Jesus continues to cover our sin. it is when we say we are a christian and continue sinning, Christ blood has done nothing for us.
John is calling us to a Higher calling. As long as we understand that we have sin and that we need Christ we are purified by his blood. When we deny sin we deny the need for a Savior.
When we do sin, all we have to do is ask for forgiveness and we are forgiven. The psalmist right, that he remembers our sin no more.
Paul understood that well when he wrote, the things I don’t want to do I do and the things I want to do I don’t, what am I suppose to do, praise be to God for the Blood of Christ and the Cross.
What does the blood of Christ do after we are baptized?
The word Makes is a continuation, but not of the works of Man but the work of the Cross.
there is no mention of a place beyond death here. He is speaking of this world and our time in it.
i dont get what your point is?
for one thing you need to be more careful how you dothe Quote thing cuz you have atrributed words to me that are really yours and vice versa…
and I dont understand people who say they are followers of Christ but dont want to enter His Chuch?
V
Victor_Claveau
Guest
True, Canon Law does not apply to non-Catholics. Excommunication can only apply to only baptized members of the Catholic Church.
Once a person is in “formal heresy”, which is the deliberate denial or doubt of a revealed truth, they separate themselves from the Church. Confession of the sin of heresy and the granting of absolution is necessary for one to be readmitted to the Sacraments of the Church.
I only pointed out Church teaching. I am not responsible for anyone’s heresy. Let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps the shoe fits too tight and that is why you are so upset. Each person is responsible for their own salvation.
C
cruisin
Guest
I am following you but it is tough when the message box does not allow textual color changes. I will try to do better.
How do you define His Church? Is it the same as God does? are you sure?and I dont understand people who say they are followers of Christ but dont want to enter His Chuch?
1jo 1:5 This is the word which came to us from him and which we give to you, that God is light and in him there is nothing dark.
1jo 1:6 If we say we are joined to him, and are walking still in the dark, our words are false and our acts are untrue:
1jo 1:7 But if we are walking in the light, as he is in the light, we are all united with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son makes us clean from all sin.
My point being I agree that the word “makes” is meant to be a “continuation” but that continuation is not of what “we do”(penance), but what Christ did. Even after our baptism, the Blood of Christ still continues to cover our sins as long as we continue to admit that we are sinners and know that we must depend on him and not on ourselves. I believe that when we think we have to somehow depend on ourselves for part of it, we have fallen in to one of Satan’s traps.
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Notice Isaiah writes that it is our righteousness is as filthy rags, not our sins.
How can I make myself righteous enough based on what Isaiah says?
based on the following text in Romans I don’t think Paul would agree with it either.
Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh( the law), but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. What death is Paul speaking of here. the death of the flesh or spiritual death?
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Lets go back to the story of the pig pen. and lets look at the parable of the prodigal son.
let me ask you this… How clean was the man when his father put the robe around him.? did he make him go clean up first? I will bet he still stunk of pigs, which is an abomination to Jews. which character represents God in the story? Who is us? Does the character of the older son represent anybody?
God always takes us as we are, as long as our hearts are right.
V
Victor_Claveau
Guest
Non Serviam [/QUOTE said:
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
I’ll take that as a “thank you” for the Canon Law lesson earlier.
Let’s not forget that Jesus was in the minority when He stood in front of the Sanhedrin. As was Stephen, As was James, as was Paul. Being part of a large, official religious body that believes it speaks for God isn’t necessarily synonymous with being right about something.
V
Victor_Claveau
Guest
I beg to differ, it is synonymous when that large official religious body is the Catholic Church.
Why do you stick around this forum when you don’t believe as a Catholic and have little or no desire to learn Catholic truth? What is needed is intellectual integrity.
Do you really expect to change Catholic minds?
This forum was established for dialogue and learning; to answer the questions from inquiring minds, not to put up with anti-Catholics who, in their ignorance, rant against the truth of Catholicism. If you want to learn, stick around. If all you want to do is attack what you fail to understand, don’t waste our time.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Actually, membership doesn’t guarantee being correct about a particular point-Thomas Aquinas and his views on the Immaculate Conception is the first example that springs to mind. Keep in mind that the Magesterium doesn’t claim to have infallibly taught everything. Nor does it claim that any individual Catholic will interpret its pronouncements correctly. Those facts alone should give one pause before asserting that something is “thus and so”.
You’ve shown up, spouting Magesterial quotes with great zeal, sought to solemnly pronounce to us who is and isn’t Catholic, and what perils they will face. Twice now, I’ve shown you to be incorrect about the simplest of matters and yet you still feel qualified to sit over me as judge and teacher.
Thank you, but I’ll decide who to take lessons from-there are a number of bright, intelligent Catholics and non-Catholics on CAF who have shown me many things, perhaps they’ll be able to do the same for you.
Now let’s stop taking this thread off its intended topic. Tell us what your objection is to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences.
V
Victor_Claveau
Guest
I have no objections concerning the Catholic doctrine of Indulgences and neither should any faithful Catholic. It is only heretics who disagree.
D
distracted
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Non Serviam,
You have to understand what is the big T tradition–understanding Scripture from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ through the Apostles and their successors in establishing the Church vs the small t tradition of the many different regions and cultures…the Church has no right to impose on the local customs and practices of local churches…
I myself would like to take another course on the nature and mission of the Church. The Church is basically mystical. Nobody owns it or any property, although it has competent stewards to do so. The Holy Father in union with the Bishops will make a decree or judgment, and the bishops represent the faith of their own people in their own diocese.
Conditions change, science evolves, what might be an issue in one diocese might not be in another geographic or cultural region…or side by side dioceses will have very different cultures within them.
What we follow in faith is the Apostolic faith nurtured by the sacraments, but I may express my faith with particulars given to my own local culture. I can read criticisms of Catholicism and people providing links, comments, contradictions but they are looking at our faith from the outside and not from within the Apostolic faith which is centered, moderate, reasonable. And people had this faith during the Reformation, they had it during the Albigensian heresy when 90% of the bishops fell into error.
I have observed in my life that those who draw deeper on the Apostolic faith tend to go to Mass more frequently during the week and literally ‘stay out of issues’…they voice their opinions in a way of peace and unity, but spend more time focusing on their own life. They are quite enduring. I really admire the people that go to daily Mass, hear the priest explain the Bible readings for the day drawing on the times and issues of the peoples in past days…or on a saint feast day, we hear about the heroic life of a saint and the times and troubles they had endured. And so it is rather a quiet and reflective faith…but people leave Mass and go out to do many different things. We have one parishioner who is very much involved in pro life education and travels the country, and works for fund raisers in our parish for the Pro Life cause. Very active person.
The Church, and the local parish has a truly universal character…people come from all background, economic levels, races and cultures…we go to the same church. Everybody is on a different level and has their way and opinion of doing things…But we all work for that unity of being and staying together, and we know we are nurtured on the Lord’s Body and Blood, and that He remains among us. We also acknowledge His Spirit with those Christians separated from us and we usually pray for them to be one at almost every Mass, including the Sunday Masses. The pulpit is never used to put down other Christians or religions but to help build us up in Christ.
You have to understand what is the big T tradition–understanding Scripture from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ through the Apostles and their successors in establishing the Church vs the small t tradition of the many different regions and cultures…the Church has no right to impose on the local customs and practices of local churches…
I myself would like to take another course on the nature and mission of the Church. The Church is basically mystical. Nobody owns it or any property, although it has competent stewards to do so. The Holy Father in union with the Bishops will make a decree or judgment, and the bishops represent the faith of their own people in their own diocese.
Conditions change, science evolves, what might be an issue in one diocese might not be in another geographic or cultural region…or side by side dioceses will have very different cultures within them.
What we follow in faith is the Apostolic faith nurtured by the sacraments, but I may express my faith with particulars given to my own local culture. I can read criticisms of Catholicism and people providing links, comments, contradictions but they are looking at our faith from the outside and not from within the Apostolic faith which is centered, moderate, reasonable. And people had this faith during the Reformation, they had it during the Albigensian heresy when 90% of the bishops fell into error.
I have observed in my life that those who draw deeper on the Apostolic faith tend to go to Mass more frequently during the week and literally ‘stay out of issues’…they voice their opinions in a way of peace and unity, but spend more time focusing on their own life. They are quite enduring. I really admire the people that go to daily Mass, hear the priest explain the Bible readings for the day drawing on the times and issues of the peoples in past days…or on a saint feast day, we hear about the heroic life of a saint and the times and troubles they had endured. And so it is rather a quiet and reflective faith…but people leave Mass and go out to do many different things. We have one parishioner who is very much involved in pro life education and travels the country, and works for fund raisers in our parish for the Pro Life cause. Very active person.
The Church, and the local parish has a truly universal character…people come from all background, economic levels, races and cultures…we go to the same church. Everybody is on a different level and has their way and opinion of doing things…But we all work for that unity of being and staying together, and we know we are nurtured on the Lord’s Body and Blood, and that He remains among us. We also acknowledge His Spirit with those Christians separated from us and we usually pray for them to be one at almost every Mass, including the Sunday Masses. The pulpit is never used to put down other Christians or religions but to help build us up in Christ.
S
steve_b
Guest
not to derail things but here’s an answer to your comment about Aquinas and the IC.
“Your Aquinas is off”
I WISH to respond to a statement I read in This Rock ("‘Habemus papam’?", July/August 1995).
The assertion was made that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This assertion is sometimes made by those who dissent from Catholic doctrine in a lame attempt to justify their own stance: If Aquinas denied an infallible doctrine of the Church and still is recognized as the prince of theologians, a saint, and Doctor of the Church, then one who simply does not agree with the Church on certain issues (some even infallibly defined) can remain a Catholic in good standing. By some inverted logic some even go as far as to say, “Do not be surprised it my present ‘faithful dissent’ is finally recognized as valid by the Church at some future date.” They say the same could happen to theologians such as Hans Küng or Charles Curran.
The assertion that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception is inaccurate, misleading, and superficial. One could say. following the same logic, that the Pelagians (e.g., Julian of Eclanum) were among the first to proclaim the dogma of the Immaculate Conception back in the fifth century. Those that know the history of the Pelagian controversy realize how misleading (nay, ridiculous) it would be to make such a claim. It is true that the Pelagians would have the Virgin Mary as the first and most obvious example of a sinless, including original sin.
The Pelagians, though, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception as taught and defined by the Church; they believed in an “immaculate conception” that has no need of redemption, an immaculate conception that no Catholic can believe in. After all, for the Pelagians, Christ was more of a teacher and an example than a redeemer; for them original sin was contracted by imitation of the sin of Adam (not by generation as Trent, using an Augustinian formula, declared). The Pelagians denied that this first sin of our first parents had any other particular effect on human nature beyond the bad example it gave us to follow.
Analogously, one who claims that Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception is making a very superficial and misleading statement. The following would be far more accurate and less misleading: If the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original sin, then (so thought Aquinas) this would detract from the dignity of Christ, who is the Redeemer of all men, including the Virgin. Aquinas never denied the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Church. He simply did not see how the universality of Christ’s salvation would have been preserved in the case of the Virgin. The so called “immaculate conception” that Aquinas could not accept is an unredeemed immaculate conception, an opinion that all Catholics, not just Aquinas, have to reject, especially after the true meaning of the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church.
To be fair to St. Thomas, the most we can say is that he did not see how two facts could be reconciled-that Christ is the true Redeemer of all mankind and that a particular human being, the Virgin, was conceived without sin. The concept of “anticipated redemption” or “preservation” from original sin by the merits of Christ simply did not occur to him. If Aquinas had been presented with this solution to his dilemma, no one could seriously doubt that he would have been the first to teach the Virgin’s privilege.
Aquinas (and for that matter Anselm, Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales (and several other theological heavyweights of the Middle Ages) did not so much deny the Immaculate Conception as simply assert the universality of Christ’s Redemption, a clear and undisputed dogma of Christianity which they could not intellectually reconcile with a human being conceived free from original sin.
Manuel A. Pedrozo
Hilliard, Ohio
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9512ltrs.asp
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Manuel,
Thank you for the elucidation…Our Dominican teacher of the Summa admitted the Franciscans always believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary…and for Thomas to take the position that he did in no way lessens his sanctity and great work in the erudite tradition…I don’t think any of the best scholars on CAF could even come close to him.
Thank you for the elucidation…Our Dominican teacher of the Summa admitted the Franciscans always believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary…and for Thomas to take the position that he did in no way lessens his sanctity and great work in the erudite tradition…I don’t think any of the best scholars on CAF could even come close to him.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Do ya think? 
The guy probably had an IQ of 250 LOL. Aquinas was off-the-hook intellectually superior to probably any theologian of the last five hundred years let alone us humble schlameels in CAF!! 
The guy probably had an IQ of 250 LOL. Aquinas was off-the-hook intellectually superior to probably any theologian of the last five hundred years let alone us humble schlameels in CAF!!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Well…Guerny…It seems like we Catholics are just lightweights lately on CAF…Frankly, I don’t let Augustine prevent me from drawing on the life of Christ in my faith either…Interesting posts by Edwin…but again, when you participate in the life the church…meaning Catholic there is quite a bit to it, including many saints…
And I don’t like ST. Thomas that much either…he may have had a certain IQ, but he was still a dumb ox when it came to women…thinking we all have defective genes…and I think I am more inclined to the Orthodox way of all having fallen nature vs original sin from Adam and Eve…which is a myth shared by ancient people…
And I don’t like ST. Thomas that much either…he may have had a certain IQ, but he was still a dumb ox when it came to women…thinking we all have defective genes…and I think I am more inclined to the Orthodox way of all having fallen nature vs original sin from Adam and Eve…which is a myth shared by ancient people…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You’re not an Aquinas fan? Wow! I’m a little fuzzy on what you said toward the end. You, as a strict practicing Catholic and student of Catholic education buy into the Eastern Orthodox view of Original Sin over the Augustinian view? Maybe I misunderstood you there?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
No, you didn’t…I mean, this is my private thoughts…and I would teach and support original sin…like it goes back to the beginning of human life…you can call them Adam and Eve…but it has to go along with science…so far all I heard, is that a woman’s genes go back to a first mother, in Africa…but where is Adam…my pastor considers Adam and Eve a myth, it seems to me it is drawn from ancient Sumer…or around…the Jews and these other Semitic people are indirectly related…drew on the same stories to find meaning in life…
But what I am looking at…is that some times God made it too hard for people to be good, that we were made to fail. I think about the lost souls…I don’t believe any good soul is condemned either…so that may be an answer right there.
I read a letter by a pastor to his congregation, Catholic, about people of different religions and how they all draw on the same…and tonight on TV…how babies are the same all over the world with minimal differences of culture…I think we are all same (and I woulldn’t let St. Augustine’s failures keep me out of the Catholic Faith…it is the unity and oneness and only 1% of the clergy have not been faithful to celibacy – worldwide)…
So if people aren’t able to hear the Gospel, I don’t think they are condemned because they are not baptized…I mean, if they are good, and have the spirit of brotherhood, and i have heard exemplary stories of ‘pagans’, I cannot see them failng of eternal ilfe because they are not baptized…
So if I understood it correctly, the Orthodox disagree with Aquinas regarding Original Sin, and I don’t think the Church has to be so dependent on Aquinas and Augustine.
And I have studied Carmelite spirituality and lived among Dominicans with their charisms…They ascent to the Lord…think of the Psalm 24 climbing the Mountain of the Lord…ascetic, self-denial…Thomas would be here and I assume Augustine. But St. Francis sought the Lord in the descent…down to the Master’s feet to be a servant to christ in all, Francis named the sun, moon, stars, the animals and sea and wind as brother and sister, this unity of Creation. The Franciscans descent to Christ to His humanity whereas the Dominicans and Carmelites ascend to God in His Godhead…we need all charisms…I needed to read the Summa on God…have read some very good insights from Augustine…but I somehow am drawn to St. Francis the most outside of Mother Mary and St. Bernadette.
You look at these saints, their lives in Christ…it seems to make Original sin…something too legalistic…Christ was baptized at the River Jordan…beginning of His ministry…and we are baptized to become part of Him…and baptism washes away the sin and strengthens us…to a point…and then this is where the Sacraments kick in…but when things get too far from humanity and too theologically intellectual, we can miss the simple answers and richness in the spiritual life right in front of us.
I am going to go to sleep now…Yes, we all have to be baptized and washed clean of Original Sin as we follow Jesus who was baptized…but for other intent – ministry…and i think Manuel did very well to clear up some things that were not expounded on by my Dominican teacher on Aquinas and Mary…it was a passing comment of his…he said the Franciscans saw Mary Immaculate…but I think all of us have our own original sin…I remember bad things I did before First Holy Communion…may be I don’t get too deep into theology…may be I should…but when I read what the Orthodox said about our own nature is parent to our own sinfulness…I agreed with that as well…
But what I am looking at…is that some times God made it too hard for people to be good, that we were made to fail. I think about the lost souls…I don’t believe any good soul is condemned either…so that may be an answer right there.
I read a letter by a pastor to his congregation, Catholic, about people of different religions and how they all draw on the same…and tonight on TV…how babies are the same all over the world with minimal differences of culture…I think we are all same (and I woulldn’t let St. Augustine’s failures keep me out of the Catholic Faith…it is the unity and oneness and only 1% of the clergy have not been faithful to celibacy – worldwide)…
So if people aren’t able to hear the Gospel, I don’t think they are condemned because they are not baptized…I mean, if they are good, and have the spirit of brotherhood, and i have heard exemplary stories of ‘pagans’, I cannot see them failng of eternal ilfe because they are not baptized…
So if I understood it correctly, the Orthodox disagree with Aquinas regarding Original Sin, and I don’t think the Church has to be so dependent on Aquinas and Augustine.
And I have studied Carmelite spirituality and lived among Dominicans with their charisms…They ascent to the Lord…think of the Psalm 24 climbing the Mountain of the Lord…ascetic, self-denial…Thomas would be here and I assume Augustine. But St. Francis sought the Lord in the descent…down to the Master’s feet to be a servant to christ in all, Francis named the sun, moon, stars, the animals and sea and wind as brother and sister, this unity of Creation. The Franciscans descent to Christ to His humanity whereas the Dominicans and Carmelites ascend to God in His Godhead…we need all charisms…I needed to read the Summa on God…have read some very good insights from Augustine…but I somehow am drawn to St. Francis the most outside of Mother Mary and St. Bernadette.
You look at these saints, their lives in Christ…it seems to make Original sin…something too legalistic…Christ was baptized at the River Jordan…beginning of His ministry…and we are baptized to become part of Him…and baptism washes away the sin and strengthens us…to a point…and then this is where the Sacraments kick in…but when things get too far from humanity and too theologically intellectual, we can miss the simple answers and richness in the spiritual life right in front of us.
I am going to go to sleep now…Yes, we all have to be baptized and washed clean of Original Sin as we follow Jesus who was baptized…but for other intent – ministry…and i think Manuel did very well to clear up some things that were not expounded on by my Dominican teacher on Aquinas and Mary…it was a passing comment of his…he said the Franciscans saw Mary Immaculate…but I think all of us have our own original sin…I remember bad things I did before First Holy Communion…may be I don’t get too deep into theology…may be I should…but when I read what the Orthodox said about our own nature is parent to our own sinfulness…I agreed with that as well…
- Status