Protestantism

gordonhooker said:

I am fairly sure that the Heavy Gustav Railway Canon was the biggest.

Click to expand...

Could fire shells weighing seven tonnes to a range of 47 kilometres (29 mi).

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6)

And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. (Isaiah 2:4-5)

PeaceByJesus said:

Could fire shells weighing seven tonnes to a range of 47 kilometres (29 mi).

Click to expand...

Just think the amount of Bible tracts which could be stuffed inside such a projectile bringing the Gospel to lost souls instead of hot shrapnel.

redleghunter said:

Just think the amount of Bible tracts which could be stuffed inside such a projectile bringing the Gospel to lost souls instead of hot shrapnel.

Click to expand...

Indeed. VOM and South Korean Christians used to launch balloons into N. Korea with gospel material. More deadly.

GingerBeer said:

How do you know what's "infallible teaching", is there a check list or a set of criteria that marks something as infallible?

Click to expand...

This has gone unanswered, and here is a long answer to a short question.

There is basic criteria, as well as some ambiguity resulting in differing opinions as to how many infallible teachings there are, and what they are (as well as sometimes their meaning to some intent)

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. Code of Canon Law 749 Code of Canon Law - IntraText

CCC 891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . .

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

The First Vatican Council (in Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4) infallibly defined the criteria needed for the Pope himself to teach infallibly:
1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church” - When is the Pope infallible?

Four Levels of Teaching the Churches teaching, Fr. William Most:
1. Solemn definition. LG 25: No special formula of words is required in order to define. Wording should be something solemn, and should make clear that the teaching is definitive. The Pope can define even without the Bishops.

2. Second level: LG 25: "Although the individual bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter, they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively held."..

The key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. ..

If they do not mean to make it definitive, then it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise of Christ,"He who hears you hears me". Rather, it is a matter of what the Canon and LG 25 call "religious submission of mind and of will." What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. - Four Levels of Teaching the Churches teaching, Fr. William Most:

...unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. - Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility

The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. - [FONT=Liberation Sans, sans-serif] Catholic Encyclopedia > Encyclical [/FONT]

Infallible statements can be recognized by the language used by the Pope, e.g., "I declare, I define, I proclaim." These teachings require assent of mind and heart. One who doubts these articles falls into heresy. - Fr. Orsi from to "A Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem" (1998) Against The Grain

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302

..it has defined that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible” this definition, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infallible, the Bull Unam Sanctum included; and by prospective action, will make all similar acts in future [to be] binding upon the conscience.” — “The Vatican decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance,” p. 14, by Henry Edward Manning (speaking here), and William Ewart Gladstone

Fr. John Hardon wrote that infallibility includes declarations that “include not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected to divine revelation.” (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, p. 195)

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility

It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Going into the First Vatican Council, there was an ultramontanist view that held that every infallible element of bulls, encyclicals, etc., every decree of the Roman Congregation, if adopted by the Pope should be seen as stamped with the mark of infallibility; in short, “…every doctrinal pronouncement is infallibly rendered by the Holy Spirit.” Such an attitude treated papal pronouncements the way Protestants treat the Bible. - http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/10/03/the-infallibility-of-the-pope-and-the-magisterium

The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, 119, 120

. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. - "Must I Believe It?" by Canon George Smith Ph.D., D.D. (Originally published in The Clergy Review) "

Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility…

Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see!..

The first text to consider is the famous bull Exsurge Domine1 promulgated by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther... Based on these characteristics, most pre-Conciliar Roman Catholics agreed that Pope Leo’s bull was an Ex-Cathedra proclamation. this document clearly says: “we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these errors,” including the following that are relevant both to the Orthodox – Catholic dialogue and to the issue of infallibility:...

Orthodox theologians can argue that Papal Infallibility as defined by the bull Pastor Aeternus does not harmonize well with historical data, a problem also recognized in modern Roman Catholicism. The fact that no list of Ex-Cathedra statement has or in or likelihood will ever be produced further leads the reduction of this dogma to the level of confusing and non-testable rhetoric. - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf

In addition to the lack of an infallible list of infallible teachings, is the lack of one revealing which magisterial level (out of 4) each one belongs to, and thus what kind of assent is required.

Thus a poster "rrr1213" responds,

Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - Catechism "infallible?"

Of-course, ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is a novel and unScriptural premise of (and basically in primary cults), with it never being required for authority, or for providence for and preservation of faith, and for God to make promises thereof, nor was it required for valid magisterial authority and settling of disputes. (Dt. 17:8-13) But since it was not infallible, the NT church began in dissent from it, basing its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with writing being God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

GingerBeer said:

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practises within protestantism but from what I've seen not so for Catholicism - they have one catechism and one church making for one set of well defined doctrines and practises at an official level.

Click to expand...

You are making a standard RC catechism and central magisterium the criteria for what defines what her members believe, which does not equate to the same thing anymore than the Scriptures being the supreme authority means all concur on that.

In both cases their respective sources are subject to varying interpretations, including by the leadership RCs are supposed to follow as docile sheep, but few do. Surveying shows those Rome counts as members disagree with their church more than others, while Rome's leadership interprets herself as meaning these are still members, from Ted Kennedy Caths to SSPX types.

And Scripturally, what one does and effects is the criteria for determining what they believe. (Ja. 2:18) And while the CCC is much smaller and concise than Scripture, many Catholics interpret it differently, even as to whether former RCs a myself can be saved if faithful moral believers who sincerely oppose Rome.

Protestantism cannot claim one set of well defined beliefs and practises at an official level nor at a membership level. Catholics may have difficulty with well defined doctrines and practises at a membership level.

Click to expand...

Again, what does this prove/what's the point, unless you define what Protestantism is? You simply cannot compare the tent called Protestantism with one church. Instead, compare what Catholic members profess versus those from a Protestant (defined) denomination. Or one type of Protestants (evangelicals).

Meanwhile, if Rome treats those as members in life and in death who manifestly differ from her doctrines and practices at a membership level, then she is teaching this is acceptable. What you do is always a result of what you truly believe.

Nevertheless at an official level Catholicism is more tolerant of Protestantism than Protestantism at an official level is of Catholicism.

Click to expand...

Which only applies to modern ecumenical Catholicism, while if modern Catholicism held to infallible teaching as most plainly manifest, then you could hardly say it was more tolerant at an official level.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

More such RC bombast, versus modern spin.

As for individuals, in the last few years I have seen traditionalists RCs spout things like,
that Protestantism is belief in one's self, and
absolutely alien to Christianity, and that,
Protestants are mostly biblically illiterate,
intellectually dishonest,
evil fruit, who
don't have the Holy Spirit, and
are not part of the Body of Christ, and
who have no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and
will not be saved unless they becomes a member of the Catholic Church, and
are by inclination vandals who should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
who seem to long for the days and means of the Inquisition.

GingerBeer said:

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practises within protestantism but from what I've seen not so for Catholicism - they have one catechism and one church making for one set of well defined doctrines and practises at an official level. Protestantism cannot claim one set of well defined beliefs and practises at an official level nor at a membership level. Catholics may have difficulty with well defined doctrines and practises at a membership level. Nevertheless at an official level Catholicism is more tolerant of Protestantism than Protestantism at an official level is of Catholicism.

Click to expand...

One catechism many interpretations. There are three Roman Catholic forums here on CF because they all can't along.

And which Catholic church do you refer to? Roman Catholicism or the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox? I'll throw in there Sedevacantism for good measure. All of the above claim to be the One True Church.

As a former Roman Catholic I will tell you there are only a few binding teachings and a host of things which some say are binding or not.

GingerBeer said:

Odd that you mention that. The Catholics I've spoken with have fairly uniform interpretations of the Catechism except when they say it is difficult to figure out then they leave the matter for further study and thought but Evangelical friends I have who have seen the CCC have a huge variety of interpretations.

Click to expand...

Ask your Catholic friends where they stand on abortion.

START HERE:

Roman Catholic Church - New World Encyclopedia ...THE RCC

THEN:...an excellent comparison chart!

What is Roman Catholicism?

Roman Catholicism (RCC)

1. The bishops, with the pope as their head, rule the universal Church.
2. God has entrusted revelation to the bishops.
3. The pope is infallible in his teaching.
4. Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God.
5. Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption.
6. Mary is the co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions.
7. Initial justification is by means of baptism.
8. Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works.
   
9. Grace is merited by good works.
10. Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments.
11. No one can know if he will attain to eternal life.
12. The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
13. Christ's body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic church around the world.
14. The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the sacrifice of the Mass.
15. Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God's wrath against sin.
16. The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass.

Biblical Teaching

1. Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Colossians 1:18).
2. God has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).
3. God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19; Acts 17:11).
4. Scripture alone is the Word of God (John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21; Mark 7:1-13).
5. Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18,19).
6. Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:13,14; 1 Peter 5:7).
7. Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
8. God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5). Good works are the result of salvation, not the cause (Ephesians 2:8-10).
9. Grace is a free gift (Romans 11:6).
10. Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:10).
11. The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit who indwells believers (1 John 5:13; Romans 8:16).
12. There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
13. The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and He is bodily present in heaven (1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 10:12,13).
14. The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).
15. The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God's wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).
16. The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 1:3).

GingerBeer said:

That was a very wordy answer. I gathered from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the answer is fairly concise and amounts to

• Everything that is revealed by God is infallible teaching of the Catholic Church
• An ecumenical council may, in concert with the pople, define doctrine and practise infallibly [infallibility.
• A pope may, when speaking ex-cathedra, define doctrine and practise infallibly

Click to expand...

Rather (besides the difference btwn the claim of the pope having the gift of conditional infallibility and the ability of a council to teach infallible truths), it means whatever is declared, defined, pronounced as being Divinely revealed Truth by the pope (formally or not, dependending on interpretation), or a ecumenical council in union with him, is infallible, and therefore is revealed by God, including that whatever is declared, defined, pronounced as being Divinely revealed Truth is infallible, and therefore is Divinely revealed Truth.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) critera, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Thus faced with (the presumption of) the Assumption, which was so lacking evidential warrant from even early Tradition that Rome's scholars opposed it being declared apostolic teaching, Keating asserts,

“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

• It is possible for the whole people of God, in concert with the pope, to define doctrine and practise infallibly but this is a rare exercise.

  Click to expand...

That is more the Orthodox position - without an infallible pope which (besides certain other RC distinctives) they say is not what Tradition teaches - but even the often-claimed “unanimous consent” of the fathers is misleading, and the dictum of Vincentius ("we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all") is problematic, and the sensus fidelium can really mean what leadership says is what the people of God believe, even if not what is manifest in the only substantive, wholly inspired-of-God record of what the NT church believed.

GingerBeer said:

That's not interpretation it's people disagreeing.

Click to expand...

On abortion yes, since this is not simply CCC teaching, yet the CCC itself is not infallible, and can err as one in the past can, and can contradict each other. And what some RCs call disagreeing others call interpretation. And as said, by treating even liberal proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, Rome interprets herself (including canon law which basically forbids church funerals to such), and thus teaches the masses that such need not excommunicate you, contrary to Scripture.

GingerBeer said:

It isn't infallible unless it is true

Click to expand...

Which is mere doublespeak, for an argument for infallibility is that is how you assuredly know something is true! Thus it is (erroneously) asserted that that we could not know which writings are truly inspired of God unless the RCC had infallibly told us. Which is also how a RC knows ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is true, fr this premise is the basis for the assurance for a RC that something is true.

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God..." “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

and it isn't revealed by God unless it is revealed in apostolic tradition and/or scripture according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

More parroting of RC circular propaganda, for the claim that something isn't revealed by God unless it is revealed in apostolic tradition rests upon the premise that the infallible magisterium determines/decrees what apostolic tradition/Divinely revealed Truths consist of, which has determined that the infallible magisterium determines what apostolic tradition/Divinely revealed truths consist of.

In concert with the pope ecumenical councils do not produce new revelations from God nor does the pope nor in concert with the pope do the people of God. Revelation from God is complete already and only "private revelation" is said to be possible now but private revelation is not public like the scriptures are and like apostolic tradition is. The role of the councils and popes and the hierarchy is to interpret revelation not to create it.

Click to expand...

Which does not contest anything I said, while this sets infallible decrees as inferior to what apostles preached as the word of God, for men such as them could speak as wholly inspired of God, and also thereby provide new public revelation, neither of which Rome claims for her popes in infallible pronouncements. Being merely protected from error as Rome presumes, is not the same as being the wholly inspired word of God, which has a unique power.

Even the words of RC oral tradition are not themselves considered to be inspired, which would make them part of Scripture if written, while the whole church went about preaching the word as regards salvific truths. (Acts 8:4)

GingerBeer said:

Self excommunication is how it is stated in the CCC. A Catholic who stops believing what the Catholic church teaches is in the process of self-excommunication.

Click to expand...

Again, you are going your degree of understanding of some of what it written on self excommunication/latae sententiae, and not by how the author manifestly understands the issue at hand.

For the fact is that while Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states, "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion," very very few RCs, even Ted Kennedy-type public figures, have suffered official imposition or declaration of excommunication, while as regards obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, the criteria for which is subject to subjective judgment by the local ordinary.

I quote here from a priest and professor,

The second situation, those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, is harder to determine and usually requires a case-by-case study. Even expert canonists disagree regarding the practical applications. But almost all are in accordance that the law should be narrowly interpreted and that all the factors — obstinate perseverance and manifestly grave sin — must be simultaneously present before Communion can be publicly denied.

Even if the priest is practically certain that a person should not receive Communion and would be committing a sacrilege by doing so, he should not publicly refuse to administer the sacrament. No person, not even a grave sinner, should be publicly exposed for hidden faults. Everybody has a right to preserve his good name unless it is lost by the sinner's public actions or in virtue of a public penalty. - Legionary of Christ "Father" Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university; http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur401.htm

For as Canon 1318 states, A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts.

And since Rome has abundantly manifested that she considers even liberal proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, then why should not the laity of themselves, or others?

For other people to notice their change of beliefs would take time.

Click to expand...

If anything, it would usually be some of the laity who know one of their own is a liberal proabortion type, and even when this is very manifest then they are not treated as excoms by the majority of laity, for again, for since Rome hardly manifests she considers a person to be excommunicated, then why should they of themselves, or others?

GingerBeer said:

Self excommunication is how it is stated in the CCC. A Catholic who stops believing what the Catholic church teaches is in the process of self-excommunication.

Click to expand...

Again, you are going your degree of understanding of some of what it written on self excommunication/latae sententiae, and not by how the author manifestly understands the issue at hand.

For the fact is that while Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states, "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion," very very few RCs, even Ted Kennedy-type public figures, have suffered official imposition or declaration of excommunication, while as regards obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, the criteria for which is subject to subjective judgment by the person and the local ordinary.

I quote here from a priest and professor,

The second situation, those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, is harder to determine and usually requires a case-by-case study. Even expert canonists disagree regarding the practical applications. But almost all are in accordance that the law should be narrowly interpreted and that all the factors — obstinate perseverance and manifestly grave sin — must be simultaneously present before Communion can be publicly denied.

Even if the priest is practically certain that a person should not receive Communion and would be committing a sacrilege by doing so, he should not publicly refuse to administer the sacrament. No person, not even a grave sinner, should be publicly exposed for hidden faults. Everybody has a right to preserve his good name unless it is lost by the sinner's public actions or in virtue of a public penalty. - Legionary of Christ "Father" Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university; http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur401.htm

Thus Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian

Canon 1318 states, A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties; he is not, however, to establish censures, especially excommunication, except with the greatest moderation and only for graver delicts.

And since Rome has abundantly manifested that she considers even liberal proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, then why should not the laity of themselves, or others?

For other people to notice their change of beliefs would take time.

Click to expand...

If anything, it would usually be some of the laity who know one of their own is a liberal proabortion type, while again, t since Rome hardly manifests she considers a person to be excommunicated, then why should they of themselves, or others?

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)