Does this make her a legitimate clergyperson of the Unitarian Universalist ... I can't say "faith," because they don't have one ... er ... "organization"?
Yes because Unitarians and Roman Catholics are interchangable (sarc)
Unitarians are a Marxist sect that invite people to speak like sandanista guerrillas. An old college acquaintance who leans way left, brags about how his ‘Religion’ is out to take out capitalism.
Ms. Mary F. Keldermans is suffering from the very first of the seven deadly ones: pride.
Over my many years, I’ve been intrigued with the censure known as excommunication. I remember as a child that if you were divorced and remarried outside the church you were “excommunicated” (at least almost every priest prior to V II would tell the couple that). And after Vatican II, you would occasionally hear about the woman or women claiming to be ordained or “attempting” to be ordained or simply calling themselves Ordained priests, being excommunicated by the local see, as in the case presented in this thread.
A clear example of excommunication is in 1 Corinthians 5:5 and one that I seem to always be drawn to when chatting about the use of this medicinal penalty. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines excommunication as follows: (this is only an excerpt)
“Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.”
I have seen the use of this censure by various bishops to silence and discipline women who proclaim to be priests or are motivated to seek ordination and claim to be catholic priests; but I have never seen a priest who abused children/adolescents get excommunicated. I find that curious because the offense committed is an abomination.
Is Unitarian even a real church?
Ping!