Posted on 07/11/2007 10:41:50 AM PDT by markomalley
You are correct.
Only the weak-spined apostate compromisers like Colson, Impe, Swindel, etc can't figure that out.
It seems that Catholics have no problem voting for Democratic candidates who support abortion.
When is the RCC going to excommunicate pro-abortionists like Kennedy and Kerry?
Catholics are like Muslims, they don't go after their 'own'.
Speaking as a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment.
If you've read any of the 'Catholic' threads on the religion forum, you'd hear a whole lot of us Catholics asking the same question.
Speaking as a Catholic, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. If you've read any of the 'Catholic' threads on the religion forum, you'd hear a whole lot of us Catholics asking the same question.
Well, what are you Catholics going to do about it?
That is blatant Vatican doublespeak which proves only one thing ---even the words of the Pope require reinterpretation.
My reaction is “Wow, he finally said something the slightest bit interesting!”.
An interesting question...
For one, pray for our bishops, that they get some backbone.
For second, pray for those politicians, the the Holy Spirit may convict them in their consciences to the end that they will be converted.
For third, pray for the Nuncio and for the Holy Father, that they will appoint courageous and holy men to succeed the current crop of wimps (and that appears to be actually working...some of the new ones appear to have a spine, such as Burke in St. Louis)
But one thing you have to realize is that we don't practice shunning as a matter of our doctrine. Even excommunication does not release somebody from obligation to attend Mass...it just means that they are not allowed to receive communion or the other sacraments until such time as the excommunication is lifted.
You can't suddenly make somebody "not Catholic." In baptism one receives an indellible mark on the soul. Thus the only way somebody, even somebody who's excommunicated, can become non-Catholic is for the person to, on his own accord, formally defect from the Faith.
And there is nothing that any bishop or any pope can do about that.
Since the primary reason for the Mass is the receiving of the communion, it doesn't seem to be much point for one who is excommunicated to do so.
That's where you're wrong.
The primary purpose of attending Mass is the public worship/ adoration of God.
And...
If you are in a state of 'mortal sin', whether that is characterized as excommunication or not, you are to exclude yourself from receiving communion.
A. Necessity
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin. Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church has practically determined the Divine precept by the law of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent, which obliges the faithful to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
C. Dispositions
That Holy Communion may be received not only validly, but also fruitfully, certain dispositions both of body and of soul are required. For the former, a person must be fasting from the previous midnight from everything in the nature of food or drink. The general exception to this rule is the Viaticum, and, within certain limits, communion of the sick. In addition to the fast it is recommend with a view to greater worthiness, to observe bodily continence and exterior modesty in dress and appearance. The principal disposition of soul required is freedom from at least mortal sin and ecclesiastical censure. For those in a state of grievous sin confession is necessary. This is the proving oneself referred to by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28). The only case in which one in grievous sin might dispense with confession and rest in content with perfect contrition, or perfect charity is when on one hand confession here and now is morally speaking impossible, and where, on the other a real necessity of communication exists.
Are you intermixing the terms Eucharist and Communion here? (They are not 100% synonymous). Had you said that the purpose of the Mass is the Eucharist, I'd agree. But, at least in my opinion, the actual central high point is the anamnesis, followed very, very closely by the epeclesis. And those two points are where the adoration that I mentioned come into play. (keep in mind that a person can receive communion outside of Mass; one cannot witness the epeclesis or anamnesis except in one place: the Mass)
I was viewing the issue from the point of the excommunicate, who cannot partake of the sacrament which can give him eternal life, something the Mass cannot give him.
My focus was on the one who has been excommunicated from the Church and thus, is separated from all the Communion permanently.
I would say however, that if someone stayed in mortal sin,(refusing to go to Confession), it is unlikely that he would continue to go to Mass since he cannot take the Communion.
The interesting thing is that excommunication is considered a 'medicinal' penalty vice an expiatory penalty.
And, yes, I recognize that this is not how it is used in common usage. And, yes, I recognize that in past times, when there were civil penalties against heresy (often very severe), that excommunication was the vehicle used by the ecclesiastic community to identify a heretic and then release that heretic to the civil authorities for disposition and application of that civil penalty. And yes, I recognize that in times past there was a particularly severe form of excommunication that would, in rare cases, prevent an individual from even attendance at Mass (that form of excommunication no longer exists, btw)
But, as a medicinal penalty, the goal of excommunication was, and is, to bring the excommunicate to repentance for his or her sins and subsequent return to the fold.
As an example, Martin Luther was excommunicated as a notorious heretic and schismatic. Of course, he would not be admitted to any of the sacraments while excommunicated. However, there is adequate evidence that demonstrates that he was repeatedly offered the opportunity to recant from his heresy and to be received back into the Church (even the records of the Council of Trent demonstrate this fact).
I was viewing the issue from the point of the excommunicate, who cannot partake of the sacrament which can give him eternal life, something the Mass cannot give him.
One thing here, too, is that you may have inadvertently misread what the Catholic Encyclopedia said about communion.
In your post #30, you quoted part of the entry about Holy Communion that said:
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin.
We Catholics believe that regeneration, i.e., the new birth, happens through the sacrament of baptism. Receipt of the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., Holy Communion) is regarded as spiritual nourishment and brings us in closer union with Christ through the spiritual growth that results from that nourishment. Likewise, we believe that the worthy reception of Communion separates one from sin and imparts the strength to avoid sin.
But it doesn't, in of itself, give one eternal life. Saying that would be a rejection of the necessity of baptism.
True, but what is said is that Communion is also necessary for salvation as well
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation,
Now, if a Roman Catholic thought that water Baptism saved him he would state that he was a saved man because of it.
No Roman Catholic ever states that he is a saved man, so the water Baptism only makes him 'savable' since it washes away 'original sin' but one needs to add the graces of the sacraments as well to 'earn heaven'.
You could see why Luther was so frustrated, all those works and you still do not know if you are going to go to heaven when you die (1Jn.5:13)
BTTT! Thanks for the thread.
Ironically, some of those expressing anger at the recent document were likely pleased with his remarks on Islam.
That would imply that regeneration is a synonym to salvation.
It isn't.
You could see why Luther was so frustrated, all those works and you still do not know if you are going to go to heaven when you die
Have you actually read any of Luther's works?
Luther, in his Small Catechism, says:
I. Q. What is confession?A. Confession has two parts:
First, a person admits his sin
Second, a person receives absolution or forgiveness from the confessor, as if from God Himself, without doubting it, but believing firmly that his sins are forgiven by God in Heaven through it.
Why in the world would Luther approve of Confession (in front of a confessor) if he believed salvation was assured after the initial regeneration? Wouldn't he condemn it as just another empty work?
No, the belief in eternal assurance is considerably newer than Father Luther.
I guess if they wanted the Cahtolic Church’s approval, they wouldn’t have split away. It’s a silly “I’m offended” moment by someone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.