Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake; RnMomof7
If a person does something to incur excommunication, then they have denied themselves the sacraments: the ordinary means of grace.

Good grief. They have not "denied themselves". Their church denied it to them. Stop being cagy. No sound Prot or Baptist has any criticism of Rome on this account. It's a matter of necessary church discipline for all of us. Most SBC churches, for instance, prohibit membership to any owner of a liquor store or bar. It's no more arbitrary in terms of church authority and discipline than anything Rome does.

The final arbiter of a soul's destiny, as He is of everything else, is God. The Church is God's vicegerent and servant.

I see. Then you are saying that Rome's sacraments and the special powers of her priests have absolutely no effect on the eternal fate of any soul? That, in effect, Rome is unnecessary? I don't think my bishop, Bruskewitz, would agree. Bernardin's liberal meddling with Fabian's excommunication of liberal pro-gay/pro-abort RCs is a good example. Bernardin got away with meddling in another bishop's diocese where he held no authority to do so. I still can't believe that Bruskewitz's archbishop let this happen.
46 posted on 07/17/2003 10:10:53 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: George W. Bush
They have not "denied themselves".

They certainly have.

For example: if a person directly procures an abortion they have committed an offense which automatically excommunicates them.

Say such a person receives the Eucharist from an unwitting priest. He does not receive any grace from it. As the Apostle says, he is rather "eating and drinking damnation unto [himself]" by profaning the Eucharist.

Now say the priest overhears this person bragging about how he encouraged and paid for his wife's abortion. The next time he comes up to the altar, the priest refuses him the Eucharist.

Has the priest withheld grace from him? If the priest had communicated him would he have received the grace of the Eucharist?

By no means. He cut himself off from grace by his evil actions. The priest is merely formally acknowledging something that is already an accomplished fact. This formal acknowledgment, as you say, is part of necessary Church discipline in order to warn other believers of the gravity of falling into such a sin.

Then you are saying that Rome's sacraments and the special powers of her priests have absolutely no effect on the eternal fate of any soul?

Far from it.

The sacraments, among which are included the sacramental ministry of the priesthood, are the greatest helps we have to the grace of salvation. Rejecting them is turning away from the greatest gift God has ever given to man: the Body and Blood of Christ.

55 posted on 07/17/2003 11:06:43 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson