Once a Catholic Always a Catholic?

[Michie]

Some excommunications, however, are automatic(effective at the moment the act is committed) and without the intervention of the Church. Catholics are automatically excommunicated for committing these offenses:

• Procuring of abortion
  
  
• Apostasy: The total rejection of the Christian faith.
  
  
• Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
  
  
• Schism: The rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church.
  Catholicism: Excommunication and Other Penalties - dummies

 

[com7fy8]

Back in posts 6&7 >

You know the whole pearls before swine issue.

Love "hopes all things" > in 1 Corinthians 13:7 > so, in case someone is living like a . . . I'll spare the words . . . I might not say certain things to the person, but yes pray to God. And there is example, even if we do not cast pearls; again, have hope for any person.

 

[com7fy8]

Exchanging in Posts 6&7 >

From what I gather from your response it seems that if someone goes away from the path they were never really on the path, to begin with. they were never fully converted. Was that your meaning?

I see that as a possibility, but I am open. With each person, I share and be the person's best friend possible, by being as good an example as God blesses me to be. And have compassion.

Our example in Jesus can overcome any evil in any person, by example and prayer obeying God.

But it is written >

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19)

But that is theory. Practically, I know God wants me to care about each person, and pray with hope for every one; bless those who are cursing us. And they are accountable, though they might act like they don't buy what we are doing; plus, every one is reaping according to what each is sowing > Galatians 6:7-8 > how we are becoming in this life can be how we will be, much much more greatly after we leave our physical bodies and then we are only how we have been becoming spiritually. So, this is not only a theoretical thing.

 

[chad kincham]

baptism. That baptism was the entry into the church. At that point, we were adopted by God as his child.[/QUOTE

True or False:

Explain:

Here's what I think. First, I was brought into the fold through RCIA. I am not sure what is said at the "normal" confirmation. Keeping in mind that both RCIA and Confirmation are both mostly a confirmation that you and the church still recognize your baptism. That baptism was the entry into the church. At that point, we were adopted by God as his child.

Here is what the Church confirmed at that time (RCIA)

Laying on of Hands Presider:
With hands joined, the Presider invites the people to prayer. Dear friends, let us pray to God the almighty Father, for these, his adopted sons and daughters, already born again to eternal life in Baptism, that he will graciously pour out the Holy Spirit upon them to confirm them with his abundant gifts, and through his anointing, conform them more fully to Christ, the Son of God.

After a brief moment of silence, the Presider extends his hands over the entire group and says the following prayer.

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who brought these your servants to new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, freeing them from sin: send upon them, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety; fill them with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. Through Christ our Lord. R/ Amen

The part I underlined above is what made me decide that yes, once a Catholic always a Catholic. When you are adopted by a parent, you remain that parent's son or daughter for life.
You can however be estranged from that parent and even deny them publically. However, since your adoption, you remain a child of that parent

What do you think?

What I think is that water baptism and taking the Eucharist/communion does not save one’s soul.

Romans 10, a book specifically written to the Church of Rome by the apostle Paul, specifically tells you how to be saved in verses 8-13.

Does the Roman church even mention that passage to members?

Not that I know of. I’ve had catholics claim that’s not about salvation, though it specifically says it is:

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[garee]

thank you for contributing nothing or addressing anything about my post

Sorry if I offended.

From my understanding it would seem you are trying to make the temporal corrupted things seen "the authority" .Or what you might call Apostolical succession.

That shows me you added new meaning to the word sent one.(apostle) In violation to the law not to add new meaning to a word , making the apostles venerable ones who serve a hierarchy of men who lord it over the non venerable pew sitters. Therefore in the end of the matter making sola scriptura (all things written in the law and prophets) the true authority without effect so that one might serve a law of the fathers, kings or princes.

 

[rturner76]

Do you agree if they should be ex-communicated? If yes, are they?

You're not asking me but I don't they do or should be excommunicated. The worst thing that would happen for something like that is likely they would be denied communion until they repent and change their ways.

They could get excommunicated if they did something like write a book declaring that The Catholic Church now says homosexuality is no longer a sin and encourages people of the faith to try it. Spreading information like that is heresy and heresy is the most common offense for excommunication. Otherwise it could be for political reasons like if a Catholic dictator was oppressing and killing people and claims to be devoutly Catholic. The Pope might say change your ways or be excommunicated

 

[concretecamper]

Sorry if I offended.

you didnt offend. In fact, it made me chuckle because it reminded me of the Progressive Auto Insurance commercial where Flo is playing commercial chicken and tries not to blurt out how everyone can save money. She can't help herself and blurts it out.

I've found that many on this forum takes every opportunity to blurt out the standard talking points against His Church.....even when the conversation is about something else totally different.

 

[Cis.jd]

You're not asking me but I don't they do or should be excommunicated. The worst thing that would happen for something like that is likely they would be denied communion until they repent and change their ways.

They could get excommunicated if they did something like write a book declaring that The Catholic Church now says homosexuality is no longer a sin and encourages people of the faith to try it. Spreading information like that is heresy and heresy is the most common offense for excommunication. Otherwise it could be for political reasons like if a Catholic dictator was oppressing and killing people and claims to be devoutly Catholic. The Pope might say change your ways or be excommunicated

But the reasoning of what is to be excommunicated is becoming flawed. You consider someone who considers abortion or has a political view on it (no matter what the circumstances) to be worthy of excommunication yet someone who is supposed to be a church leader has molested or raped other people, including children, doesn't deserve it? Why does it have to be political to be considered wrong, i mean a school teacher doing something like that would get fired just by simply doing the act.

 

[rturner76]

Back in posts 6&7 >Love "hopes all things" > in 1 Corinthians 13:7 > so, in case someone is living like a . . . I'll spare the words . . . I might not say certain things to the person, but yes pray to God. And there is example, even if we do not cast pearls; again, have hope for any person.

I wholeheartedly agree. We should pray for them and still treat them with respect and love. Just maybe not bring up the topic of the Gospel if we know they are offended by it or have made it clear that they have no desire to hear it. I'm thinking of co-workers and family members. People you must be in contact with. Love and charity can bring a conversion just as well or sometimes even better than preaching the gospel to someone at times.

Some people who have been hurt by the church or a representative of it sometimes can't ever bear the thought of going back. I can see why in those harmful situations.

 

[rturner76]

But the reasoning of what is to be excommunicated is becoming flawed. You consider someone who considers abortion or has a political view on it (no matter what the circumstances) to be worthy of excommunication yet someone who is supposed to be a church leader has molested or raped other people, including children, doesn't deserve it? Why does it have to be political to be considered wrong, i mean a school teacher doing something like that would get fired just by simply doing the act.

You are mistaking my personal opinion for the opinion of the church. The whole molestation question is way above my pay grade.

Logic would tell me that someone caught doing that should be booted out of the church and send to prison. If I had to guess why it is that way, I would say it has to do with repentance. The monsters who help to destroy the very foundation of the church usually cry to their bishop and confess. Because of the sacrament of reconciliation, they receive forgiveness and they give it another go. I believe a Priest who was an unrepentant monster would get excommunicated but I'm not an expert on church law.

There are things I don't understand about the Church like why politics are even part of the dogma but I'm sure it stems from a time when monarchy and the CHurch ruled hand in hand. The Church could force a king to make a law. I think they still have not fully adjusted to the government system of Republic where the Church has no say. So they must go to the parishioners to have a voice in government.

This is all personal speculation and nothing I'm saying here is as a representative of the CHurch with authority of any kind.

 

[Cis.jd]

You are mistaking my personal opinion for the opinion of the church. The whole molestation question is way above my pay grade.

Logic would tell me that someone caught doing that should be booted out of the church and send to prison. If I had to guess why it is that way, I would say it has to do with repentance. The monsters who help to destroy the very foundation of the church usually cry to their bishop and confess. Because of the sacrament of reconciliation, they receive forgiveness and they give it another go. I believe a Priest who was an unrepentant monster would get excommunicated but I'm not an expert on church law.

There are things I don't understand about the Church like why politics are even part of the dogma but I'm sure it stems from a time when monarchy and the CHurch ruled hand in hand. The Church could force a king to make a law. I think they still have not fully adjusted to the government system of Republic where the Church has no say. So they must go to the parishioners to have a voice in government.

This is all personal speculation and nothing I'm saying here is as a representative of the CHurch with authority of any kind.

My apologies. I didn't mean to confuse your opinion with the church. But yes, it's just a confusing thing with the politics with in the church that in some ways alerts me to be fishy in some ways.

 

[Valletta]

My apologies. I didn't mean to confuse your opinion with the church. But yes, it's just a confusing thing with the politics with in the church that in some ways alerts me to be fishy in some ways.

You are looking at the subject in the wrong way, what we are talking about is what the Church has decided are some AUTOMATIC excommunications. The list is NOT intended to say these sins are graver than all other sins. I would think abortion is put on the list rather than murder of all kinds because many in society think it is not a grave sin. So it is NOT a judgment of the Church that abortion is considered a worse sin than killing a one year old child.

 

[garee]

you didnt offend. In fact, it made me chuckle because it reminded me of the Progressive Auto Insurance commercial where Flo is playing commercial chicken and tries not to blurt out how everyone can save money. She can't help herself and blurts it out.

I've found that many on this forum takes every opportunity to blurt out the standard talking points against His Church.....even when the conversation is about something else totally different.

Against the church the spiritual unseen house of God made up of many lively stones or against the law of your fathers that you must call apostolic succession. Another kind of teaching authority other than all things written in the law and the prophets(sola scriptura)

No man can serve two teaching authorities as master or Lord.. Can they?

 

[concretecamper]

Against the church the spiritual unseen house of God made up of many lively stones

The Gospel of Matthew

"You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house."

I'll listen to what Christ says. I will not follow the doctrine of men.

Another kind of teaching authority other than all things written in the law and the prophets(sola scriptura)

According to Scripture, God commanded us to follow the Church, so that is what I will do.

SS has been disproven multiple times on this forum. Let's not start another thread where SS will be dismantled.

 

[Zao is life]

True or False:

Explain:

Here's what I think. First, I was brought into the fold through RCIA. I am not sure what is said at the "normal" confirmation. Keeping in mind that both RCIA and Confirmation are both mostly a confirmation that you and the church still recognize your baptism. That baptism was the entry into the church. At that point, we were adopted by God as his child.

Here is what the Church confirmed at that time (RCIA)

Laying on of Hands Presider:
With hands joined, the Presider invites the people to prayer. Dear friends, let us pray to God the almighty Father, for these, his adopted sons and daughters, already born again to eternal life in Baptism, that he will graciously pour out the Holy Spirit upon them to confirm them with his abundant gifts, and through his anointing, conform them more fully to Christ, the Son of God.

After a brief moment of silence, the Presider extends his hands over the entire group and says the following prayer.

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who brought these your servants to new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, freeing them from sin: send upon them, O Lord, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete; give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety; fill them with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. Through Christ our Lord. R/ Amen

The part I underlined above is what made me decide that yes, once a Catholic always a Catholic. When you are adopted by a parent, you remain that parent's son or daughter for life.
You can however be estranged from that parent and even deny them publically. However, since your adoption, you remain a child of that parent

What do you think?

I'm impressed with the prayer and the rite. To me it should be part of all Protestant Baptisms. I'm not Catholic. IMO your only parent is God, not the church. "let us pray to God the almighty Father, for these, his adopted sons and daughters, already born again to eternal life in Baptism,"

But I shouldn't be posting in this forum because I'm not Catholic. I just liked what I read re: the prayer they pray and the rite.

 

[rturner76]

I'm impressed with the prayer and the rite. To me it should be part of all Protestant Baptisms. I'm not Catholic. IMO your only parent is God, not the church. "let us pray to God the almighty Father, for these, his adopted sons and daughters, already born again to eternal life in Baptism,"

But I shouldn't be posting in this forum because I'm not Catholic. I just liked what I read re: the prayer they pray and the rite.

Even though some changes were made, basic Reformed theology was based on Catholic dogma. It was the only CHurch at the time. The Reformers just thought The Catholic/Orthodox Churches had gone off the rails with statues, veneration, and the biggest offense was indulgences. I think even The Church decided indulgences were out of bounds during the counter-reformation. Big changes happened at Vatican II that moved the Church to a more evangelical position.

So Catholics and Protestants are not opposites in my view, just a different take on what the structure of the church should look like.

From my understanding, you are welcome here. It's not a "Catholic" forum, it's just that it deals with topics specific to a particular denomination. I believe you are allowed to respectfully challenge the specific theology neog discussed in the thread.

 

[Albion]

Even though some changes were made, basic Reformed theology was based on Catholic dogma. It was the only CHurch at the time.

A few footnotes to your post, RT--

It wasn't "the only church at the time."

When Martin Luther spoke at the famous Leipzig debates, he referenced the Eastern Orthodox churches (which were older than the Church of Rome) as evidence that the Roman Catholic Church had innovated and departed from the Apostolic faith (because, obviously, the Eastern churches had not followed the Papacy's lead).

The Reformers just thought The Catholic/Orthodox Churches had gone off the rails with statues, veneration, and the biggest offense was indulgences. I think even The Church decided indulgences were out of bounds during the counter-reformation.

They are still in use. But the issue during the early Reformation was more about the SALE of Indulgences.

 

[garee]

The Gospel of Matthew

"You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house."

I'll listen to what Christ says. I will not follow the doctrine of men.


According to Scripture, God commanded us to follow the Church, so that is what I will do.

SS has been disproven multiple times on this forum. Let's not start another thread where SS will be dismantled.

You say you listen to what Christ says but in the end of the matter you must follow the doctrines of men that you call sacred tradition as oral traditions of men .

In that way no man can serve two teaching good masters .Like those what you call a Devine sacred tradition simply make the word of God (sola scriptura) His tradition without effect. Again according to the written law of your fathers . And even list the oral traditions of men first in order to the Devine Holy Tradition of our Father .

The law of the fathers as it is written . . . (CCC " 80 ") Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

Like any other sect you serve the private interpretation thereof . We all have personal opinions of what we think the scripture is teaching us according to the loving commandment of God which moves us to study in order to seek his unseen approval.

But rather you must serve a law of the fathers a hierarchy of venerable men that lord it over the faith (beliefs) of non venerable pew sitters.

 

[concretecamper]

You say you listen to what Christ says but in the end of the matter you must follow the doctrines of men that you call sacred tradition as oral traditions of men .

"he that hear you hears Me, he that rejects you reject Me and rejects the One who sent Me." I'll listen to what Christ says, not Luther, Henry VIII, Pastor Bully Bob, etc

In that way no man can serve two teaching good masters

I agree, that is why I follow Christ, not those mentioned above (along with 10,000s of others)

Like those what you call a Devine sacred tradition simply make the word of God (sola scriptura) His tradition without effect

SS is unbiblical and doesnt make logical sense. SS has been debunked many times on this forum.

Like any other sect you serve the private interpretation thereof .

I follow His Church's interpretation, not my own or any other of the long list of what many call heretics.

We all have personal opinions of what we think the scripture is teaching us according to the loving commandment of God which moves us to study in order to seek his unseen approval.

I am not infallible, you are not infallible, no one on this forum is infallible. Therefore, I submit to His Church.

But rather you must serve a law of the fathers a hierarchy of venerable men that lord it over the faith (beliefs) of non venerable pew sitters.

I serve Christ. He promised us a Church. He never promised us a book.

 

[rturner76]

A few footnotes to your post, RT--

It wasn't "the only church at the time."

When Martin Luther spoke at the famous Leipzig debates, he referenced the Eastern Orthodox churches (which were older than the Church of Rome) as evidence that the Roman Catholic Church had innovated and departed from the Apostolic faith (because, obviously, the Eastern churches had not followed the Papacy's lead).


They are still in use. But the issue during the early Reformation was more about the SALE of Indulgences.

I don't disagree with any of this. At the end, I mentioned Catholic/Orthodox churches but you are correct that it was the sale of indulgences that made Martin Luther launch his protest. Then as a theologian, he went deeper into the issues where he thought the Roman Church went wrong. Calvin went even deeper. A ton of churches came out of Calvinism.