Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.
I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.
Sandy Covahey, Baltimore
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
And thank you too. The links you provided should give me many hours of reading to do. These conversations are such a good opportunity to learn.
Peace,
SR
Paul rejected the true faith? Who knew?
Ephesians 2:1-10 2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
4/1/12
message to Kevin Barrett
...My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me. But unfortunately only a remnant shall overcome. For too many have listened to the lies told by the false shepherds and prophets. * They speak of how you each are already cleansed and adorned in righteousness simply by your belief on My name. These are all lies, My people. * For does not My word say that he who DOES righteousness is righteous?
~ ~ ~
I am sad, you reject your own prophets. Jesus is trying to reach you. How can Our Lord say it more simply?
“Faith Alone” is not from God, it came from Martin Luther.
The “works” Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:9 are by our own doing, something we do apart from God’s grace.
Verse 10 goes right over your head. We must follow Christ in doing “good works.” You posted another verse in the Gospel that shows “Faith Alone” is heresy.
King James Version (KJV)
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Douay-Rheims
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
Actually, the “heresy” or oft-repeated canard among RCs is that sola fide equates to a faith that is alone, when it distinctly does not.. Rather it means that while faith and works go together like light and heat, it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, as seen in Acts 10 and allowed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire, but by not by a kind of faith that would remain alone. See REFORMATION FAITH + WORKS.
And in reality, what Roman Catholicism fosters is the very thing that her apologist accuse sola fide of promoting, that of “easy believism,” as due to Rome's promoting of herself and her powers and merits, Catholics trust that she can get the most nominal of Catholics into glory (eventually, though Ratzinger speculates that purgatory may involve "existential" rather than "temporal" duration; something one experiences, but experiences in a moment), and whom she treats as members in life and in death (but when they converted to become conservative evangelicals is the greatest concern shown).
Also, as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown provide,
that they may — The Greek includes also the idea, They are blessed, in that they SHALL rest from their toils (so the Greek). and — So B and Andreas read. But A, C, Vulgate, and Syriac read “for.”
They rest from their toils because their time for toil is past; they enter on the blessed rest because of their faith evinced by their works which, therefore, “follow WITH (so the Greek) them.” Their works are specified because respect is had to the coming judgment, wherein every man shall be “judged according to his works.” His works do not go before the believer, nor even go by his side, but follow him at the same time that they go with him as a proof that he is Christ’s.
And Henry,
Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth, etc. Here observe, (1.) The description of those that are and shall be blessed - such as die in the Lord, either die in the cause of Christ, or rather die in a state of vital union with Christ, such as are found in Christ when death comes. (2.) The demonstration of this blessedness: They rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. [1.] They are blessed in their rest; they rest from all sin, temptation, sorrow, and persecution. There the wicked cease from troubling, there the weary are at rest. [2.] They are blessed in their recompence: Their works follow them; they do not go before them as their title, or price of purchase, but follow them as their evidence of having lived and died in the Lord; and the memory of them will be pleasant, and the reward glorious, far above the merit of all their services and sufferings.
Rather than Rv. 14:13 contradicting sola fide, it supports it (but not purgatory), as it is not any kind of faith that saves, but one that effects works. And as faith is known by what it effects, so believers are judged by God to be believers on account of their works as and rewarded accordingly as "worthy." (Mt. 25:23,33-40; Rv. 3:4) But evidence to the contrary of the straw men of this fringe Catholic is either ignored or blithely dismissed (and who also resorts making things personal in order to do so). And thus he is.
Your reasonable replies are a welcome addition here.
I know what you believe from what I have seen you write over the years and I know the error of that belief. I guess you believe that all the Apostles were not part of a visible church in one together?
That they all may be ONE, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be ONE in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one-John 17:21-22
The Church is Both Visible and Heavenly, dear Sister just as we know Christ's Divinity from His Visible human nature
Here is excerpts from very good article that explains this well..
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/#denial
III. Denial of Visibility is Ecclesial Docetism
A. Ecclesial Docetism
In Catholic ecclesiology, the ground of the Church’s unity is Christ, who is both spirit and flesh. We are united to Christ by being united to His Mystical Body through the sacrament of baptism. We are more deeply united to Christ and the Church through the sacraments of Confirmation and the Eucharist. An act of schism separates a person from the Church, and hence from Christ, because the Church is Christ’s own Mystical Body. Catholicism is sacramental, in that it looks for the spiritual through the material, just as we know Christ’s divine nature only through His human nature. We do not, as in gnosticism, attempt to bypass the material, and try here in this life to skirt the sacramental and see directly the divine nature or take the God’s-eye point of view, because that is presently beyond us as material creatures. If we want to know our status in heaven, we inquire concerning our status in His Mystical Body on earth. This earth-to-heaven direction of faith’s epistemology is seen in what Jesus says to the Apostles: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”35 The visible and the invisible are bound together because of the incarnation, wherein what is done to the flesh of Christ is done to the Person of Christ. That is precisely why excommunication has teeth; it truly cuts a person off from Christ.
Consider one common Protestant position, according to which all Christians are equally united to Christ by faith alone, and therefore equally united to the Church. I have described this position above as the pin-cushion model. According to this notion of the Church, schism does not do anything to the unity of all Christians, only to the outward manifestation of our otherwise intact spiritual unity. This is a de-materialized (i.e., spiritualized) ecclesiology that in this respect is both gnostic and docetic. Since the incarnate Christ is both spirit and flesh, the visible unity of His Mystical Body is not merely an “outward expression” of the Church’s real spiritual and invisible unity, just as sexual union is not merely a physical expression of the inward/spiritual unity of husband and wife. Sexual union truly should be a bodily expression of a spiritual union. But sexual union is not merely an outward expression of spiritual unity; it is itself a real union of husband and wife. Likewise, the visible unity of the Church (including hierarchical unity) is a real unity of the Mystical Body, not merely an outward expression of the real unity which is spiritual and invisible.
The root problem here is a kind of dualism that treats the spiritual as the really real, and the material as a mere context for the expression of the spiritual. This reduces the Mystical Body to a spirit having some visible members, an invisible pin-cushion with some visible pins. Wherever schism is treated as not separating a person (to some degree) from Christ, there the Church is being treated as fundamentally and intrinsically invisible, with some visible members. Denying the essential unity of the visible hierarchy treats the Mystical Body of Christ as though it is not actually and essentially a Body, because visible hierarchical unity is essential and intrinsic to a body. If a body ceases to be visibly hierarchically one, it ceases to be. This is why a human being cannot survive disintegration of his body. So if visible unity is only accidental to something, that thing is not a living body; it is, at most, only the appearance of a body. Hence those who claim that the Mystical Body of Christ is invisibly one and visibly divided are treating the Body of Christ as though it were merely an apparent Body, not an actual Body. That is why this position is rightly described as ecclesial docetism, because docetism is the heresy which claimed that Christ only appeared to be a man.
That does not mean that we must fall into some kind of ecclesial Eutychianism. Eutychianism, which is also called Monophysitism (meaning “one nature”), was condemned at the Fourth General Council, the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. According to the Monophysites, Jesus’ humanity was absorbed into His divine nature such that He no longer has a human nature, having only His divine nature (hence “Monophysitism”). Docetism and Eutychianism both deny that Christ has a human nature. For that reason, both docetic and Eutychian notions of the Mystical Body of Christ treat the Church as in itself invisible, spiritual, and immaterial, only visible in the sense that it makes use of embodied human believers in much the same way that the Logos (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity), according to a docetic conception, perhaps made use of material elements in order to appear as though having a physical body, but was not actually made up of those material elements, nor were they parts of Him. Chalcedonian Christology, with its affirmation of two distinct natures united without mixture in one hypostatic union, entails that the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is in itself visible and hierarchically organized as one corporate entity.36
The charge that Catholic ecclesiology is Eutychian asserts that the Catholic claim [that the visible Body of Christ is essentially one] mistakenly attributes to the visible aspect of the Church what is only true of the invisible aspect of the Church, and in that way falsely attributes what is only true of the divine nature of Christ to His human nature, as Eutychianism does. But this charge is based on the mistaken notion that visible hierarchical unity is not intrinsically essential to a living human body. The real distinction between Christ’s divine nature and His human nature does not imply that the Mystical Body of Christ is not necessarily visibly one any more than it would imply that Christ’s physical body could continue to exist even if all its parts were separated. Rather, because Christ truly possesses human nature, His Mystical Body is necessarily visibly one in its hierarchy, just as his physical body is necessarily visibly one its hierarchy. A living human body is essentially visibly one. If it ceases to be visibly one, it ceases to be. Hence, its visible hierarchical unity is essential to its being. That is why the Catholic doctrine that the Mystical Body of Christ is essentially visibly one in its hierarchy is not Eutychian.
B. What Does Ecclesial Docetism Look Like in Practice?
The spirituality and visibility of the Church are no more opposed to each other than the soul and body of a man, or, better, than the divinity and humanity in Christ. . . . It is because it ignores this inseparable twofold character of the Church that Protestantism, Lutheran and Reformed, has never succeeded in resisting the temptation to distinguish, by opposing them, an invisible and sole evangelical Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, visible, human, and sinful Churches.37
In practice, ecclesial docetism entails ecclesial consumerism, because it eliminates the notion of finding and submitting to the Church that Christ founded. In the mindset of ecclesial docetism, what one looks for, insofar as one looks, is a community of persons who share one’s own interpretation of Scripture. In ecclesial docetism the identity of the Church is not determined by form and matter, but by form alone. Which form? The form of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. This reveals why there are so many different Protestant denominations, worship centers, and ecclesial communities, none of them sharing the three bonds of unity with any of the others. Just as the practical effect of docetism is a Christ of our own making, disconnected from the historical flesh-and-blood Christ, so the practical effect of ecclesial docetism is a Church made in the image of our own interpretation, disconnected from the historical Church.
This is expressed doctrinally as a denial of the materiality or sacramentality of apostolic succession. Ecclesial docetism redefines ‘apostolic succession’ as preservation of form, i.e., preservation of the doctrine of the Apostles. But without the material component of apostolic succession, the individual becomes the final interpretive arbiter of what the apostolic doctrine is. And so the ‘church-shopping’ commences. And where there is a great variation of demand, a great variation of supply arises. ‘Church’ is reduced to a consumer-driven enterprise, based on each person’s own internal perception of his own spiritual needs and how the competing organizations, institutions, or communities meet those needs. This turns ‘church’ into something egocentric rather than God-centered.
Another necessary effect of ecclesial docetism is apathy regarding visible divisions between Christians, communities, and denominations. If the unity of the Church is spiritual, insofar as each believer is invisibly united to Christ by faith alone, then pursuing visible unity is superfluous, even presumptuous in its attempt to outdo Christ.38 If there is no essentially unified visible hierarchy, then while there may be certain pragmatic reasons for ecumenical cooperation, as there are within political parties, there can be no divine mandate that there be no schisms among us. Ecclesial docetism redefines the term ‘Church’ to refer to an invisible entity into which all believers are perfectly joined no matter to which visible institution (if any) they presently belong.
Herein lies a noteworthy point. Ecclesial docetism conceptually eliminates the very possibility of schism. It does so not by reconciling separated parties, but by defining unity down, as something merely spiritual, and so de-materializing schism as something invisible, and spiritual, i.e., merely a deficiency in charity.
That is an overrated virtue.
It is true that, while disparaging fallible human reasoning with its private interpretation as being unable to provide more than a fallible human interpretation (and thus no full assurance of truth), and as resulting in doctrinal chaos, yet the decision of the RC to assent to Rome is itself a a fallible human decision, and he must engage in interpretation in discerning what magisterial class a RC teaching belongs in, as there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, and RCs disagree on how many there are (out of multitudes of candidates). Including what parts of Trent are infallible, as well as V2, and if and where the CCC can err.
They also have great liberty to interpret Scripture in seeking to support RC teaching as they understand her, and in which they also differ. I just went thru many posts with an RC who insisted that Cornelius and co. were forgiven and regenerated before baptism, contrary to Augustine, Aquinas, Ratzinger and other RC scholarship.
The RC will argue that their "living magisterium," being "living," clarifies itself, however here also you can also often find lack of clarity and inconsistency, and disagreement as to what is officially supported teaching.
While the RC magisterium certainly provides parameters that prevent disagreement on core truth and limit it in others, yet they can only do so for their church, and under sola ecclesia disagreements and divisions over significant issues are also a reality.
Meanwhile, each SS-type church has their own magisterial office which also provides parameters that overall work to prevent disagreement on core truth and limit it in others, though they also see significant disagreement and division.
But rather than doctrinal chaos, historically sola ecclesia churches have overall been unified in many core salvific truths and stood against those who deny them, such as cults which also work out of sola ecclesia, as well as against teaching as doctrines the mere "tradition of the elders." (Mk. cf. 7:3-16)
Of course the real question is, Scripturally how were writings to be established as being Divine and truth preserved, and assurance of faith obtained? The premise of Rome is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for these, but Scripture attests that most of the writings we hold as Scripture were established as such before there was a church in Rome, and truth preserved, and assurance of faith was realized in the light of Scripture substantiation in text and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12.) And that Scripture is abundantly evidenced to have been the standard for obedience and for testing and establishing truth claims.
And thus Christianity began in dissent from those who were inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, as expressed in post 96.
This allows for “competition,” but requires the church to manifestly be that of the living God, in order to overcome evil with good, not “handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)
It is true that the Lord Jesus did not leave a Bible, as in a completed canon, but a church, yet He left a church that was established upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power, the Scriptures being the supreme authority as the assured Word of God, and versus one that infallibly defines that it is assuredly infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its criteria, which is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which renders its own declaration of infallibility to be infallible, as well as anything thusly declared in support of it.
And Catholics CANNOT let go of the concept that others follow men as has been ingrained into them to do.
Read this very carefully.....
I'm typing really slow so that you can get it.......
I do NOT care what Luther had to say. I do NOT follow him. I do not believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ because he verbalized it, I believe it because it's clearly spelled out in Scripture.
Can I be any more clear than that, or do I need to shout?
Yes, Christians know the source of salvation by faith. It's called the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed Word of God that HE gave us.
Don’t waste your time posting excerpts from your false prophets to me.
I don’t read tht kind of trash that comes from the pit.
The problem with this polemic is that Scripturally speaking, (Ja. 2:17,18) the REAL Catholic position is not simply the official line, but how it is interpreted, and what is effectually conveyed, which can be quite different than how some assert the former teaches, as has been shown earlier on this thread (40, 68, 89,)
And thus you have the Traditional Catholic groups and schisms, and the many examples of Rome treating “notorious, unrepentant sinners” as members in life and in death (resulting in defenders of the strict interpretation having to argue they all could have secretly repented before the took of the “Eucharist,” or before they died). .
Often what is seen in addition to those who have never heard of sola fide meaning faith alone as being what precisely appropriates justification, but not a faith that will not effect the obedience of faith, is the idea that SS means other sources have no place in determining truth.
Sometimes this is due to the disparagement of so-called church "fathers" (which the apostles were) expressed by evangelicals in response to Catholic esteem of them "above that which is written" (1Cor. 4:6) and as being unduly being determinative of Truth, but this exclusion of all else is not historically case, and which would be a fringe position even now, but all such extraBiblical sources are subject to the assured Word of God, the supernaturally established Scriptures.
► From Alister McGrath's* The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
*Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London
► THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2 (Heinrich Bullinger: Calvinist confession; adopted by the Reformed Church not only throughout Switzerland but in Scotland (1566), Hungary (1567), France (1571), Poland (1578), and next to the Heidelberg Catechism is the most generally recognized Confession of the Reformed Church.)
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
► From evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie:
By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things.
First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.
Second, the Bible is [formally and materially] sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants the Bible alone means the Bible only is the final authority for our faith.
Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.
Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.
Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones. — http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
Of course, Scripture only mean what Rome says it is and means, and likewise she judges the CFs more than she is judged by them (Catholic Encyclopedia>“Tradition and Living Magisterium”) and thus in response to arguments from antiquity, is the oft-quoted classic response from Manning,
"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine." (Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation," (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-2280; www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
Nice post.
Let's kibitz a bit longer. Catholic is a definitional thing. A Catholic is one who is in communion with the Church. Those whose actions and words establish that they are not in communion cannot be or remain Catholic. It is no different than if I were to simply declare myself an NFL quarterback or a Navy SEAL, or Kalif Sheik Mohammed made a statement today saying; "Although I have not changed any of my core beliefs or practices and have not repented of any of my sins I am today declaring myself a Catholic." He would be no more Catholic than Nancy Pelosi.
Many people are very confused by the whole concept of excommunication. It is not always a formal procedure and its purpose is not punitive. Matthew 18:15-17 concerns disputes between Church members, not necessarily sins. However, when we consider that sin hurts not just the sinner, but all members of the Church excommunication can be considered the beginning or recognition of the need of the "Matthew 18" process.
Peace be with you
That is circular reasoning and complete nonsense. As Churchill once begged; "Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?"
Any Biblically based doctrine is only as good as the fidelity of its translation and, absent an infallible authority, that fidelity cannot be established without the input of those who possess knowledge of what legal scholars call "original intent". Ironically, that original intent is only found in the Traditions of the Church and in the Early Church Fathers, whom Protestantism discounts because of their Catholicity, which were the wellspring from which the Bible was produced.
Peace be with you.
No, it’s not the same.
One is just someone claiming so without any valid basis.
Those like Pelosi and Kennedy were baptized Catholics, which according to other FRoman Catholics, leaves an indelible mark on the soul of that baptized individual. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic, you know.
The RCC then claims authority over them and counts them as part of the1.2 billion strong that certain Catholics like to claim the Church is comprised of.
You can’t possibly seriously expect us to believe that all of those 1.2 billion strong are faithfully practicing, church following Catholics? Your church is sure willing enough to consider them Catholics to the point of giving the likes of Kennedy a Catholic funeral.
And I’d lay money on the fact that they give Pelosi the same when her time comes.
Of course, if the Catholic church does not do anything abut those who you claim have ex-communicated themselves, it is beyond unconscionable and reprehensible on the part of the Church.
People are baptized Christians; is why RCs understand any baptized Christians coming into Catholism need not be baptized again - there’s no such thing as a “second baptism,” nor do RCs see any need for it.
A funeral is not for the dead, but celebrations that enable the Christian community to mourn as well as to hope by focusing on the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ. The dead are not presumed to have been judged and found not worthy but are entrusted to God's mercy and are awaiting their final judgment. Catholicism is, after all, predicated upon forgiveness and redemption.
Peace be with you
Natural Law:
>> “A funeral is not for the dead, but celebrations that enable the Christian community to mourn...” <<
.
Christ:
“Let the Dead bury their dead”
.
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.