Posted on 04/12/2018 9:00:47 AM PDT by LouieFisk
Though there is nothing mandating attendance at church. Just more rules made up by Roman Catholicism to control their membership.
One correction, about 15% of U.S. adults are former Catholics according to a 2015 PRRI study. that is 48.85 Million. So if Half of Former Catholics are secular, that is 24.25 which means of the 74.9 million secular Americans, about 1/3 of them were Baptized as Catholics, which of course means 2/3 were from some other faith tradition.
If a Roman Catholic commits a mortal sin they lose their salvation.
That being the case why not be re-baptized again if baptism forgives the sin?
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is a Roman Catholic teaching...not a New Testament teaching.
Easy, you can go Mass and never have to worry about the Pope. Like I told someone, I dismiss everything he says and will continue to do so until He calls a Church Council or he passes away. Then Like I have always done, I will pray for the repose of his Soul. I have seen 3 Popes Die and 1 Resign.
He spouts off nonsense sometimes, but he has done nothing dogmatically nor can he.
I believe that would be correct.
First, to your question. Not exactly, if one Dies unrepentant in Mortal Sin.
As for Baptism, Baptism is Once, there is only One Baptism which is from the NT (Ephesians 4:5), it is expressed clearly in the Creeds of the Church and was taught by all of the orthodox ECF>
As for Baptism forgiving sins being a Catholic teaching not supported by the NT, that is your opinion and interpretation of the New Testament as to what it means. Of course, I 100% disagree with your view. And as I said earlier, my view is consistent with the NT, Creeds and ECF. Your view is yours to hold and explain.
Does not the one-time sacrifice of Christ forgive all sin?
Past? Present? Future?
The same guy who wrote Ep 4:5 also wrote in Ephesians 1:13-14 :
13In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph 1:13-14 NASB
I cannot find anywhere in the NT where God, Who is the one Who gives us our salvation, ever takes it back. Nor do I find anywhere we are ever unsealed.
Paul is writing about the security of the believer in Christ.
As for Baptism, Baptism is Once, there is only One Baptism which is from the NT (Ephesians 4:5), it is expressed clearly in the Creeds of the Church and was taught by all of the orthodox ECF
Paul certainly seems to disagree with your position on the necessity of baptism.
10Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
Yes, and no. It does, if one repents, it is not a license to Sin. So one may have lived faithfully, but fell into sin and never repented of those sins.
Well none of that stuff you wrote disproves Baptism. Saint Paul is not negating Baptism, but saying that those who believe that just because he administered the Baptism was the reason for their salvation is incorrect. It was God’s Grace that was given to them through Baptism, Saint Paul only administered it.
And Saint Paul saying that he was not sent to Baptize does not again negate the Sacrament of Baptism. Just means that was not what he was commissioned primarily to do in terms of his Apostolic ministry. He clearly wrote the theology of Baptism in numerous places, too many to list here.
A few that deal with Theology of Baptism, even if Saint Paul did not administer it, include 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal 3:27-28, Col 2:11-13, Titus 3:5-7, and Rom 6:3-6.
You are pretending the homily is in Latin. It is not
No. It is not correct. The Catholic Church is not in the business of divorce. That is the civil side of marriage
That’s the way I understand it
Made up rules to keep attendance up? Ok. Well I’m just stating what I know to be the truth. I’m not going to argue with your ideas wherever they come from
I do know that in Catholicism if one does not practice the sacraments they lose their faith. I also know the sacraments come from Jesus
People don't understand the Catholic faith so they create fictions that they try and use to diminish it.
Not really. While the Catholic Church considers a valid marriage to be a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, it has no particular issues with divorce. It is, after all, a secular status and not a religious one. I know a number of Roman Catholics who have divorced and who are in good standing with the Church, are welcome to partake in the Sacraments and participate in the Church in all respects. However, divorce does not dissolve the marriage. Only annulment does that, and if they were to marry again without it then they would be committing adultery. Then they would be living in a state of sin and would be expected to forego the Sacraments.
“so you can’t get a divorce when you weren’t actually married.”
Sure you can-——the divorce is for the civil ceremony that took place at the time of the marriage,the annulment is for the religious ceremony that took place.
.
Y’all are both wrong.
Divorce is a fiction of the civil law, by which husbands and wives separate and consider themselves at liberty to take new spouses. The Catholic Church does not recognize it.
What the Catholic Church does recognize is a finding of nullity. Yes, the principle is often abused — but not so often as the sacrament is. If you attempt marriage because the girl is pregnant and you’re worried about social consequences, that marriage is probably void. If you attempt marriage to spite a former lover who jilted you, that marriage is void. If you attempt marriage without a firm intention to create a binding, life-long union, that marriage is void. If you intend to use contraception, that marriage is void. If you attempt marriage but have not definitively broken off all prior romantic entanglements with others, that marriage is void. If you attempt marriage to conceal your homosexual inclinations, that marriage is void.
Shall I go on? I think I will.
If you attempt marriage with a person who’s civilly divorced, that marriage is void. If a Catholic attempts marriage in a non-Catholic ceremony (JP, rabbi, ship’s captain, you name it), that marriage is void. If you attempt marriage because your parents thought it would be a great idea and were about to throw you out of the house, that marriage is void.
Etcetera, etcetera. You get the idea? In these demented, post-Christian days, it’s probably the small minority who actually intent to contract a Christian marriage: exclusive, live-long, open to life.
Latin Mass undid the Babel punishment, God understands Latin and the priest is speaking to Him, so that works. The rest of us are well able to read and pray along in English or any other language.
I am not wrong.
Which is why, at Latin Mass, the Word it is read to you in the local language right before the homily.
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.