WhyMe and others: Can you Be Catholic and LDS at the same time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Religio71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Religio71 said:
Firstly, why me is correctly an apostate, by joining a false church.
Click to expand...
So you are acting as a judge to pass that judgment on him. Two problems with that: First, I am not sure you are qualified to do that. Second, assuming you are, I conclude that your judgment must be wrong, because your church evidently disagrees with your decision, and I trust them with that decision more than you.
 
Religio71 said:
Hmm, let’s see:

We are all aware that whyme was baptized into the LDS Church. This is apostasy. Who said that there is “occult” information about Why me. :rolleyes: It isn’t hidden from everyone, it’s all on display right here.
Click to expand...
Then you are at odds with your church, because they evidently don’t agree with you on that one. As an outsider, I am inclined to trust their judgment more than yours.
 
zerinus said:
So you are acting as a judge to pass that judgment on him. Two problems with that: First, I am not sure you are qualified to do that. Second, assuming you are, I conclude that your judgment must be wrong, because your church evidently disagrees with your decision, and I trust them with that decision more than you.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Catechism and Code of Canon Law clearly defines who is an apostate and heretic. I don’t need to be a physician to know that if someone is bleeding it needs to be stopped. We don’t want people assuming that certain things are allowed in the Church, therefore Catholics, for 2000 years, have pointed out who and what are not part of our Faith.

And I have already cited Catholics, including one on this very thread so far, that agree with my view. I will trust them over a non-Catholic.
 
zerinus said:
Then you are at odds with your church, because they evidently don’t agree with you on that one. As an outsider, I am inclined to trust their judgment more than yours.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me, as does Canon Law and the writings of other Catholics on this very subject, usually related to abortion. I am inclined to trust their judgment more than your non-Catholic irrelevant view.
 
Religio71 said:
Nope, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me, as does Canon Law and the writings of other Catholics on this very subject, usually related to abortion. I am inclined to trust their judgment more than your non-Catholic irrelevant view.
Click to expand...
By your “church,” I mean the authorized ministers on the ground who have the ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction do determine his fate. They evidently don’t agree with you; and I trust their judgment more than yours.
 
zerinus said:
So you are acting as a judge to pass that judgment on him. Two problems with that: First, I am not sure you are qualified to do that. Second, assuming you are, I conclude that your judgment must be wrong, because your church evidently disagrees with your decision, and I trust them with that decision more than you.
Click to expand...
The Church has judged on the matter.

The Church has judged that certain acts prove a persons state. These acts demonstrate a person is ex ( not in ) communicate (communion). No judgement is necessary.

The only time their is a procedure is when there is a question about a person’s relationship to the Church. There is no question about the person’s relationship to the Church when they demonstrate it through their actions.

No Church authority would say that whyme is in communion with the faith. I certainly hopes whyme makes a full return.
 
zerinus said:
By your “church,” I mean the authorized ministers on the ground who have the ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction do determine his fate. They evidently don’t agree with you; and I trust their judgment more than yours.
Click to expand...
Who here is talking about the fate of someone, as in Heaven or Hell?

Apparently, my Church has clearly stated what I am talking about, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia, which you clearly haven’t read. It also has the imprimatur. Thus, I will trust that instead of the judgment of a non-Catholic on Catholic matters.
 
Benadam said:
The Church has judged on the matter.

The Church has judged that certain acts prove a persons state. These acts demonstrate a person is ex ( not in ) communicate (communion). No judgement is necessary.

The only time their is a procedure is when there is a question about a person’s relationship to the Church. There is no question about the person’s relationship to the Church when they demonstrate it through their actions.

No Church authority would say that whyme is in communion with the faith. I certainly hopes whyme makes a full return.
Click to expand...
See post #108.
 
zerinus said:
Then there is either something wrong with you or your chuch, because the two do not agree.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, we do agree, no matter how much you may pretend that we don’t. We both also agree that LDS worship a different God than Catholics (which is obviously clear if we start talking about the nature of God. We don’t believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, among other issues), and therefore one baptized into that church is in apostasy.
 
Benadam said:
The Church has judged on the matter.

The Church has judged that certain acts prove a persons state. These acts demonstrate a person is ex ( not in ) communicate (communion). No judgement is necessary.

The only time their is a procedure is when there is a question about a person’s relationship to the Church. There is no question about the person’s relationship to the Church when they demonstrate it through their actions.

No Church authority would say that whyme is in communion with the faith. I certainly hopes whyme makes a full return.
Click to expand...
he doesn’t get it. And yet, he would have us believe his blog is an authority on LDS matters, continuously sending us to it.

:rolleyes:
 
Religio71 said:
Who here is talking about the fate of someone, as in Heaven or Hell?
Click to expand...
By his “fate” I meant here on earth, not in heaven or hell.
Apparently, my Church has clearly stated what I am talking about, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia, which you clearly haven’t read. It also has the imprimatur. Thus, I will trust that instead of the judgment of a non-Catholic on Catholic matters.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is authority based, like the LDS Church. Those who are authorized to determine his spiritual standing are his local ministerial offcials, not the Catholic Encyclopedia, or you. And they evidently disagree with you. I trust them more than you, or the Encyclopedia.
 
zerinus said:
By his “fate” I meant here on earth, not in heaven or hell.

The Catholic Church is authority based, like the LDS Church. Those who are authorized to determine his spiritual standing are his local ministerial offcials, not the Catholic Encyclopedia, or you. And they evidently disagree with you. I trust them more than you, or the Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...
Guess he doesn’t get what the nihil obstat and imprimatur mean…🤷

And it’s ok zerinus, we know who you trust, however we Catholics know what our Church teaches, better than what you think it teaches, so we really aren’t interested in what you are saying is the correct interpretation of latae sententiae, since it doesn’t take a deacon, priest, or bishop to tell us what it means.
 
zerinus said:
See post #108.
Click to expand...
You can’t refute an objection by restating what was objected to. You have to include content that makes the objection insubstantial. Which you obviously can’t do.

You really think that it is a matter that requires the attention of Church authorities?
 
By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia was edited by three priests.

You were saying about authority again…:rolleyes:

Yeah, I’ll trust the Encyclopedia on Catholicism over you, a non-Catholic.
 
why_me said:
It is strange. But then again, it may be understandable because of history. Catholics and jews did not exactly get along. The RC has been accused of persecution of the jewish minority where the catholic church held sway. It may be an attempt at reconciliation.

But of course, you bring up a good question. Technically it would be far worse to attend a jewish temple and still be jewish as a catholic since they do not recognize Christ as the messiah. But on the other hand, since jews are not christians they may not be considered a threat to catholic hegemony. But another chrisitan group would. But in the end, it does tend to muddle the waters a little.

And posters on this forum would be hard pressed to be critical of me.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t explain why the CC appears to have one rule for Jewish converts to RCism, & an entirely different rule for Protestant converts to RCism. There seems to be no principle in the behaviour of the CC. So if the difference does rest on principle - what is the principle ?​

This kind of lack of principle is one of the things that completely undermines the CC - how can anyone take its huffing & puffing about its uniqueness seriously; or its huffing & puffing about the sinfulness of leaving it seriously, or anything else it teaches, when it behaves like this on matters which are so basic to its identity ? It does not take its own dogma seriously - so it is intolerable that it expects anyone else to do so. As the Popes practice & encourage & allow indifferentism, or share the Eucharist with non-Catholics - by what right do they complain when lesser beings follow their example, or, are confused about how to behave ?

I’ve had about as much as I can take of this insanity :mad:
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

That doesn’t explain why the CC appears to have one rule for Jewish converts to RCism, & an entirely different rule for Protestant converts to RCism. There seems to be no principle in the behaviour of the CC. So if the difference does rest on principle - what is the principle ?​

This kind of lack of principle is one of the things that completely undermines the CC - how can anyone take its huffing & puffing about its uniqueness seriously; or its huffing & puffing about the sinfulness of leaving it seriously, or anything else it teaches, when it behaves like this on matters which are so basic to its identity ? It does not take its own dogma seriously - so it is intolerable that it expects anyone else to do so. As the Popes practice & encourage & allow indifferentism, or share the Eucharist with non-Catholics - by what right do they complain when lesser beings follow their example, or, are confused about how to behave ?

I’ve had about as much as I can take of this insanity :mad:
Click to expand...
Your qualms with the imperfections of the Church are keeping you from the fullness of Christ and all the riches that a full union with Christ brings. Christ established his living Church to bring man into communion with his very self “He is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving.” Jesus never said “My Church will be perfect” you know why he didn’t say that? because then you and I couldn’t belong.

many times the truth is found in the simple answers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top