Bishops Walk Back Communion Threats

.

If the Bishops do nothing then they are cowards.

Fantine said:

St. Francis has the answer. "Peach the gospel at all times. Use words when necessary."

Click to expand...

This apocryphal saying of St Francis reduces Christianity to actions alone and if the Gospel expressed in words is not the Gospel proper (rather being something that is merely positive moral action) then the Catholic Church and virtually all Christendom needs to walk back it's emphasis on doctrine and proper theology. Jesus didn't just do good deeds, he demanded loyalty to the point of having to renounce one's family and society if called for. He called his Apostles to spread the Good news of his life, death and resurrection, not merely be moral philosophers or doers of good.

Of course, even then, what are the actions of a Catholic like Biden? He wants to remove the Hyde amendment and make US citizens directly fund abortion both in the USA and overseas. Can we even judge him for that action? Apparently not. There is then nothing any politician can do in the eyes of liberal Christians that warrants ecclesiastical discipline.

I guess Henry the 8th was right to execute More.

Too bad the RCC won't follow scripture.

They did.

ss51 said:

Too bad the RCC won't follow scripture.

Click to expand...

ss51 said:

Too bad the RCC won't follow scripture.

Click to expand...

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries, and any text that did not 100 percent comply with Catholic teaching was rejected.

Fantine said:

Can I get a "hallelujah?"

After controversy, U.S. Catholic bishops say there will be ‘no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians’



Their focus is going to be:



St. Francis has the answer. "Peach the gospel at all times. Use words when necessary."

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear this news. Thank you for sharing.

If it's all right with you, I'd like to post the link in my own thread on the same subject.

Valletta said:

The Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries, and any text that did not 100 percent comply with Catholic teaching was rejected.

Click to expand...

You just pointed out that RCC teaching is separate from scripture, the books they chose had to comply with their teachings.

Fantine said:

What did Jesus do at the first Eucharist? He included Judas.

Hmm..

Who did Jesus rebuke? The Pharisees, who overemphasized the letter of the law over its spirit.

P.S. I am not inferring that Biden is akin to Judas. Far from it.

Judas' sins were excessive materialism, stealing what was meant for the poor for his own enrichment, selling out his friend and teacher.

Click to expand...

Judas is the best example you can go to?

Should Saint Ambrose in your opinion not have forbade Theodosius from communion then? Jesus didn't say to Theodosius it would have been better if he had not been born.

The problem with comparing people who want ecclesiastical discipline is that you end up quickly denying that there should be any standards. Saint Paul excommunicated a man for sleeping with his Father's wife. In your effort to be open and tolerant of everyone, there are no longer any boundaries. Certain boundaries were broken down with Jesus. Sabbath regulations, Kosher and the like. Yet not even the Church broke down every rule or regulation.

Advocates for nothing happening to Biden can offer no greater context of the actual issues that are involved. If all they can do is compare their opponents to Pharisees they will find themselves labelling the entire Christian past as Pharisaical.

Fantine said:

??? The Old Testament is the Talmud. A sacred text of Jesus and Christians, also incorporated into the Koran.

Most Biblical scholars believe Paul didn't write many letters attributed to him, including Hebrews, Ephesians, and Colossians.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything?

The story also mentions that many Catholics don't believe in transsubstantiation. I hadn't realized that. Here's some data: Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ. 2/3 of Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation, but consider the sacrament purely symbolic. 1/3 of those who attend mass weekly also believe that it's symbolic. Percentages vary in the usual way based on age and education.

Many of those who think it's purely symbolic think this is the official teaching of the church. It would be interesting to ask about the beliefs of priests, since you'd think the people would tend to reflect what they've been taught. It's hard to believe that no one would have bothered to tell members the church's position on this issue.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Advocates for nothing happening to Biden can offer no greater context of the actual issues that are involved. If all they can do is compare their opponents to Pharisees they will find themselves labelling the entire Christian past as Pharisaical.

Click to expand...

Much of it, yes.

hedrick said:

Much of it, yes.

Click to expand...

What's your opinion of the Ambrose/Theodosius conflict?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What's your opinion of the Ambrose/Theodosius conflict?

Click to expand...

I wasn't actually speaking of church discipline. I think there are acts that are sufficiently serious and visible that the church has to do something. My church has done that in a couple of cases

I don't think we'd want churches to start excommunicating people based on their public policy judgements. Even if they cause people to die. Should we excommunicate presidents because of the impact of questionable decisions on war? At times I might find it gratifying, but I don't think it's something we want to do. That's different from committing murder in a personal capacity or for someone who is an obvious tyrant.

If Wikipedia is right, the facts are murky enough on Theodosius that it's hard to be clear. If Theodosius actually murdered a bunch of people, I could see it, but it's not so clear that he did. Overreaction by police or the equivalent is a problem, but in a modern context we wouldn't use excommunication for the leaders involved. We might take other actions. Perhaps there are differences in the role of the church in ancient Rome. It wasn't a democracy. Perhaps the church served as the only form of accountability for leaders. For that reason I'd be reluctant to judge decisions made by someone in a very different situation.

But this has little to do with my comment on Pharisees.

hedrick said:

I wasn't actually speaking of church discipline. I think there are acts that are sufficiently serious and visible that the church has to do something. My church has done that in a couple of cases

I don't think we'd want churches to start excommunicating people based on their public policy judgements. Even if they cause people to die. Should we excommunicate presidents because of the impact of questionable decisions on war? At times I might find it gratifying, but I don't think it's something we want to do.

Click to expand...

If there is no circumstance wherein a ruler or politician can be excommunicated for their public policy, this would seem to indicate a belief in the state as the final arbiter of things. There would then be no mechanism of defense for a Church when a prominent public member of theirs does something that is counter to the Church's position and interests. They could do literally anything and the Church should say and do nothing (imagine if Kings of the past had this sort of authority)

Why should this extend only to the political realm if one is a politician? Why not everyone? Why are only the powerful exempt from a Church's judgement?

To my mind, a Church must speak truth to power and for it to be otherwise the Church must be in a position where it is merely trying to survive, like Middle Eastern Christians were under Islam or unless there are some wider political goals in mind. What does doing nothing to Biden accomplish? It weakens the pro-life stance of the Catholic Church.

hedrick said:

If Wikipedia is right, the facts are murky enough on Theodosius that it's hard to be clear. If Theodosius actually murdered a bunch of people, I could see it, but it's not so clear that he did. Overreaction by police or the equivalent is a problem, but in a modern context we wouldn't use excommunication for the leaders involved. We might take other actions. Perhaps there are differences in the role of the church in ancient Rome and now that would support Ambrose's action. But if so, it wouldn't serve as a precedent for us.

But this has little to do with my comment on Pharisees.

Click to expand...

I don't see the difference myself. Ambrose was getting embroiled in a secular affairs by placing spiritual consequences on Theodosius for his massacre. There wasn't a magical transition between the time of Ambrose and now, that God revealed a new morality. Either it's always been a true position that the Church must never get involved in politics or there is a place for the Church to be politically involved.

If it is Pharisaical now for the Church to condemn Biden, why wasn't it Pharisaical for the Church to condemn Theodosius? Especially since it was a matter of state business, not Church business.

So if we should use excommunication for political ends, what about the Supreme Court? There are a number of Catholic members. They have supported verdicts that didn't overrule Rowe v Wade. Since their rulings more directly affect abortion than Biden's actions, i'd think you would want to start with them.

Interesting ethical question: If someone stands to lose money due to a decision, they are expected to recuse themselves. If someone, according to Catholic doctrine, is placed in danger of hell, that seems more serious. If the threat of excommunication is used for political judgements, should the targets recuse themselves? I think they probably should.

But many Catholic authorities would argue that no explicit excommunication needs to be pronounced. It's automatic. I think all Catholics should recuse themselves from any decision involving abortion. Or at least those Catholics who believe in that automatic excommunication. And no, I'm not just being snarky. The point of ethics principles like this is to avoid having people make decisions that affect the government because of personal consequences.

hedrick said:

So if we should use excommunication for political ends, what about the Supreme Court? There are a number of Catholic members. They have supported verdicts that didn't overrule Rowe v Wade. Since their rulings more directly affect abortion than Biden's actions, i'd think you would want to start with them.

Interesting ethical question: If someone stands to lose money due to a decision, they are expected to recuse themselves. If someone, according to Catholic doctrine, is placed in danger of hell, that seems more serious. If the threat of excommunication is used for political judgements, should the targets recuse themselves? I think they probably should.

Click to expand...

Part of the Supreme court's job is to judge by the constitution and not their own religious or political preferences. I don't believe that's what the court does but that's the justification for their existence and the commonly accepted reason why they are good. Hence, why should the Church bar someone from faithfully doing their duty? Mind you, I wish the Catholic justices would go by their religious convictions and outlaw Roe. Probably never going to happen because the political consequences of such an action would push the Democrats into flooding the court with judges who will go their way. Republicans should consider threatening the same if they want the court to actually judge by the law.

The difference between them as judges and Biden as a politician is that Biden is not beholden to the law in the same way. Biden seeks to change the law and make tax payers fund abortion. This is an explicit goal of his and one which would impact faithful Catholics who believe abortion is evil by making them pay for abortion services.

The roles are not the same and Biden's actions have consequences on more people than just himself, not just the tax payer but the more unborn people who will be aborted. It's not like this is the only thing Biden is in conflict with the Church over. It isn't over Homosexuality or Trans issues that this is being talked about, it's over abortion. Biden explicitly rejects his Church's position on all of these issues but only one is deemed important enough for this consideration.

The modern idea of the Church keeping out of political matters entirely gives way too much power to the secular state. This i thought was a bad thing according to American liberalism.

Fantine said:

Can I get a "hallelujah?"

After controversy, U.S. Catholic bishops say there will be ‘no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians’



Their focus is going to be:



St. Francis has the answer. "Peach the gospel at all times. Use words when necessary."

Click to expand...

I have to say I’m honestly not sure how I feel about this. I guess I just want to say that we need to be cautious on how we accept people who advocate and willfully indulge in sinful activities. What worries me about this idea is that we don’t want to start down a path where repentance begins to become less imperative and the church becomes more accepting of sinful behavior.