The Church, the US, and Thou

[kateri05]

technically, i think yes, although i would say, a "separated brethren." i say this because, lets say a catholic becomes protestant and then comes back to the Church, they don't get REintiatiated, they go to confession and start again.

those indelible marks on your soul from baptism and confirmation are really hard to get off

[hyperdulia again]

the excommunicated are denied communion for the good of their own souls it is not an act of expulsion from the church. and ted kennedy should be (in my opinion)canonically excommunicated, but has not been. so...i suppose as his bishop and the pope are both aware of him and his positions and have not disciplined him, that they believe allowing him to participate in the church's sacramental life is good for his immortal soul. WE have no business second guessing them...anymore than we do second guessing them about the feeney's and lefevre's of the world..which i guess means i retract the statement that he should be excommunicated and the statement that he's a bad catholic. he is my misguided brother and now amount of posturing for misguided protestant brothers will make me deny him. so there.

[hyperdulia again]

and replace proto-prot with proto-mormon

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1349625' date='Aug 4 2007, 02:31 PM']excommunication does not make one a non-Catholic (it's proto-protestant to say it does). Mr.Kennedy is in error, but he is a baptised member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. He is a Catholic. A bad one but a Catholic nonetheless.

Is he born again? yup that happened at his baptism seventy years ago or so.[/quote]

Excommunication does make one no longer a member of the Holy Catholic Church. The excommunicated are cut off from communion with the Church. From the Catechism of the Council of Trent, my emphasis added:

[quote][b]The Catechism of the Council of Trent:[/b]
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

[b]Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons.[/b] Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, [b]excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.[/b]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed09.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...nt/tcreed09.htm[/url][/quote]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' post='1349770' date='Aug 4 2007, 06:16 PM']Yes...once you're a Catholic...always a Catholic. Right? [/quote]

Not exactly. A person who is a member of the Holy Catholic Church can become a person who is not a member of the Holy Catholic Church by committing heresy or schism or by incurring excommunication.

Edited August 5, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Ora et Labora]

Well, I heard that if you were once a Catholic (for example) and then later on in your life you become...Baptist....you're still a baptized Catholic, which means you don't have to be baptized again, even though you haven't lived in communion with the Church for several years!

That's what I meant. Is that right? And I knew all of the things Tyler mentioned above could happen...

Sorry for going off topic!

[Budge]

Ora, I am not considered a "Catholic" thought I was baptized and confirmed as one.

I am a "heretic" by your churches teachings.

as this poster quoted...
[quote]QUOTE
The Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. [b]Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised.[/b] Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...nt/tcreed09.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...nt/tcreed09.htm[/url][/quote]

That part in bold is kind of scary, that is attitude that ran the inquisitions.

So anyone unforunate enough to be BORN Catholic...

What people here dont realize that among all the SEPERATED BRETHERN talk, that only applies to PROTS and Evangs. who were born so. Those who are EX-CATHOLICS are in a different category.

The Dalai Lama according to Catholic teaching has much more of a chance of heaven then me even though I confess Jesus Christ.

I used to have some Catholics online claim us ex-Catholics were still Catholics, I said NO WAY!

[hyperdulia again]

maybe i'm not that smart, but it seems to me that membership in the church can be marred and damaged but only severed by the flames of hell..if baptism makes a catholic...if we do not rebaptize reverts, or even validly baptised prots, then it would seem that they are members of the church...imperfectly...like any of us when we are in a state of mortal sin...anywho...

[kateri05]

yes, VII says that hyper, imperfect communion. budge is catholic where she likes it or not

[Sojourner]

Yep ... Budge is one of us.

Ironic, that ... we'll claim her, but she won't claim us ...

[hyperdulia again]

on excommunication:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm[/url]

[hyperdulia again]

i have made no statements directed at this budge person.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1350805' date='Aug 5 2007, 10:07 PM']i have made no statements directed at this budge person.[/quote]
Indeed you have not.

[kateri05]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1350783' date='Aug 5 2007, 08:51 PM']Yep ... Budge is one of us.

Ironic, that ... we'll claim her, but she won't claim us ... [/quote]


is about all i can say to that

[Ora et Labora]

ditto

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Budge' post='1349464' date='Aug 4 2007, 09:48 AM']Instead of calling me "stupid" but using nicer words to say so, why not accept that I do not debate Catholicism based on YOUR premises one of which is only the teachings count and not the actions.

The official paperwork on the wall means nothing if it is not being implemented. For example the Catholic Church confesses to support the first commandment officially, in CCC, elsewhere etc, but the actions of the Catholic interfaithism both done by Pope, Cardinals and down the line breaks the first commandment all the time.

Quesiton for you..

Do you believe Ted Kennedy is a Catholic?

{I dont believe Joel Osteen is really a born again Christian}[/quote]

Budge,

Your inability to distinguish between teachings and actions ("our" premises) also condemns Protestants of all varieties. Need I get into the sins of prominent Protestants? I suppose Protestantism is untrue because of people like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, televangelists, "Joel Osteen", John Calvin and all the rest. Be careful that your criteria do not come to bite you in the rear when carried to their conclusions.

I suppose that you, Budge, live out your faith constantly and without sin. Unless this is so, then you yourself have come under your own condemnation of Catholicism. I think, Budge, this is why Christ said not to judge lest YE BE JUDGED. You are intellectually free to judge Catholic Teaching, but I caution you before you dare to judge a faith by its nominal adherents: you shall inevitably beaver dam us all including yourself.

Aside from this, your diatribes are illogical as well: it makes no sense to judge a system by those that try to live out that system. These are not "our" criteria, but universally accepted norms of critical thinking. You seem to be more interested in attacking Catholicism than in discerning truth. Shame on you.

The rest of your comments to not merit a response.

God bless you, Budge.

Philip

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]But perhaps the most key of all these dogmas for our purpose is that of “Separation of Church and State.” While often bandied about today throughout the formerly Christian West (and progressively accruing particular popularity in Europe as the EU continues to emerge as an entirely secular super-state), it is a concept entirely unknown before the birth of the United States.[/quote]


I’m not a historian but I don’t know if this is totally true. There was a form of separation of Church and State before the US in Medieval Europe. The Pope was not in charge of secular affairs, this was the role of the king. Now I know that the separation was not perfect because Catholicism was the official church of the kingdom and as such the King was under the Pope in regards spiritual matters but there was still “separation” and some checks and balances between the two.

If you take the term of “Separation of Church and State” literally and totally then this would then mean that only atheist and agnostics could be political leaders.

The article was a little long winded but worth the read.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1348884' date='Aug 3 2007, 07:05 PM']Can Catholicism [b]not[/b] be conservative? [/quote]


heck yes...

as i've said before

i'm so sick of people using the words conservative and liberal concerning ecclesiastical issues...

LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS

I'll say it again


LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS


geez people what don't you understand...

liberal and conservative and non-moral terms, they concern personal beliefs about economic and other government policies...

liberal and conservative CANNOT be applied to issues like homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty and such...


i know you're just gonna say

"well i know that [i]technically[/i], but in reality most liberals are relativistic supporters of abortion, euthenasia and the like, and so i use the term simply because it is easy to use"

no. people like you spread the false belief that Catholics can only be conservative, that Catholics can only be republicans (essentially). That is a terrible lie to spread around. It uses Catholicism to propagate the conservative agenda, whether you know it or not.

that being said,

i'm semi-conservative. definitely more conservative than liberal. but i will always be an independant.

and now my little rant is over. i am sure there will be future ones.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1356313' date='Aug 11 2007, 02:34 AM']heck yes...

as i've said before

i'm so sick of people using the words conservative and liberal concerning ecclesiastical issues...

LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS

I'll say it again
LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS
geez people what don't you understand...

liberal and conservative and non-moral terms, they concern personal beliefs about economic and other government policies...

liberal and conservative CANNOT be applied to issues like homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty and such...
i know you're just gonna say

"well i know that [i]technically[/i], but in reality most liberals are relativistic supporters of abortion, euthenasia and the like, and so i use the term simply because it is easy to use"

no. people like you spread the false belief that Catholics can only be conservative, that Catholics can only be republicans (essentially). That is a terrible lie to spread around. It uses Catholicism to propagate the conservative agenda, whether you know it or not.

that being said,

i'm semi-conservative. definitely more conservative than liberal. but i will always be an independant.

and now my little rant is over. i am sure there will be future ones.[/quote]
LOL. Stick around. There exists the "Catholics must be Liberal" crowd as well. Religious zealots are equal opportunity excluders and they're not all called Budge.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1356313' date='Aug 11 2007, 12:34 AM']heck yes...

as i've said before

i'm so sick of people using the words conservative and liberal concerning ecclesiastical issues...

LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS

I'll say it again
LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS
geez people what don't you understand...

liberal and conservative and non-moral terms, they concern personal beliefs about economic and other government policies...

liberal and conservative CANNOT be applied to issues like homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty and such...
i know you're just gonna say

"well i know that [i]technically[/i], but in reality most liberals are relativistic supporters of abortion, euthenasia and the like, and so i use the term simply because it is easy to use"

no. people like you spread the false belief that Catholics can only be conservative, that Catholics can only be republicans (essentially). That is a terrible lie to spread around. It uses Catholicism to propagate the conservative agenda, whether you know it or not.

that being said,

i'm semi-conservative. definitely more conservative than liberal. but i will always be an independant.

and now my little rant is over. i am sure there will be future ones.[/quote]
LOL - First of all, you conservative-haters need to lighten up. I make a light-hearted quip concerning this thread's title, and get an angry rant, accusing me of spreading lies, and such.

Secondly, you're dead wrong on many counts here.
Son, I've been studying history and political philosophy since when you were riding tricycles, so don't presume to lecture me on the real meaning of liberalism and conservatism.

[quote]liberal and conservative and non-moral terms, they concern personal beliefs about economic and other government policies...
liberal and conservative CANNOT be applied to issues like homosexuality, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty and such...[/quote]
That statement is just plain false, and betrays an ignorance about the primary meaning of these terms.

(And what's a "personal belief" about economic and other government policies anyway? Is that opposed to a public position on these economic/government policies? But I digress . . .)

If you want to limit your definition of "liberal" and "conservative" to "personal beliefs" about economic policies, that is your choice, but that does not accurately reflect their full definitions.
And in fact, the free-market economy is properly known as "economic liberalism" while what is commonly called "economic liberalism" in modern America is more accurately described as socialism (which, like liberalism has also been condemned by the Church), but perhaps that's a topic for another discussion.

"LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS"
Apparently, many Popes did not think so, as liberalism has been solidly condememned many times by Popes, particularly Pius IX, and Pius X, formally condemning its principles in the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i].

Anyway, on with the definitions[quote]Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established [b]b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change[/b]3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change[/quote]
Definition "b" seems to best apply here.
A Catholic will usually be seen as "conservative" because he recognizes the importance of tradition, the authority of the Church, and unchanging truths and moral norms

[quote]Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : [b]a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties [/b]d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party[/quote]
"C" applies best here. The liberal believes in constant change or "progress" and for absolute moral autonomy of the individual, free from any higher moral authority. Thus the support of liberals for things such as homosexual behavior, abortion, etc., as "civil liberties" to be protected by the government.
(Also note one of the dictionary definitions of "liberal": [quote]5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : [b]not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms[/b][/quote]Describes your typical self-described "liberal Catholic" pretty well, does it not?

Your claim that these terms "CANNOT be applied" to moral issues would shock most self-described liberals and conservatives alike.
Ask your typical self-described liberal "pro-choice" or "gay rights" activist, and he would probably consider his views on such issues very much a part of his liberalism, rather than extranious to it.
The same with a "religious conservative" who is pro-life and against "gay-rights."

Pushing the "culture of death" through support of abortion and other immorality is very much at the center of modern liberalism, like it or not. In fact, it is on these issues that the Left has been most consistent in recent decades.

The late, great Russell Kirk, a founding father of the modern conservative movement, said:[quote]The twentieth-century conservative is concerned, first of all, for the regeneration of spirit and character -- with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest.[/quote]~ from [i]The Conservative Mind[/i] (1953)

Also,[quote]First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it; human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.[/quote]~ from "Ten Conservative Principles", in the second chapter of [i]The Politics of Prudence[/i] (1993)

And your equation of convervatism with the Republican Party is just plain ignorant. Conservatism is a philosophy and set of principles. The GOP is a political party. Many Republican pols are not true conservatives. (And not all Democrats are liberals, for that matter, though they certainly have a monopoly on that party's top levels.)

I suggest you read the works of Kirk and other conservative thinkers, rather than simply getting all your "knowledge" on political philosophy from network tv.
There can be nothing more truly conservative than being an orthodox Catholic.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1356964' date='Aug 11 2007, 10:02 PM']LOL - First of all, you conservative-haters need to lighten up. I make a light-hearted quip concerning this thread's title, and get an angry rant, accusing me of spreading lies, and such.

Secondly, you're dead wrong on many counts here.
Son, I've been studying history and political philosophy since when you were riding tricycles, so don't presume to lecture me on the real meaning of liberalism and conservatism.
That statement is just plain false, and betrays an ignorance about the primary meaning of these terms.

(And what's a "personal belief" about economic and other government policies anyway? Is that opposed to a public position on these economic/government policies? But I digress . . .)

If you want to limit your definition of "liberal" and "conservative" to "personal beliefs" about economic policies, that is your choice, but that does not accurately reflect their full definitions.
And in fact, the free-market economy is properly known as "economic liberalism" while what is commonly called "economic liberalism" in modern America is more accurately described as socialism (which, like liberalism has also been condemned by the Church), but perhaps that's a topic for another discussion.

"LIBERALS CAN BE GOOD CATHOLICS"
Apparently, many Popes did not think so, as liberalism has been solidly condememned many times by Popes, particularly Pius IX, and Pius X, formally condemning its principles in the [i]Syllabus of Errors[/i].

Anyway, on with the definitions
Definition "b" seems to best apply here.
A Catholic will usually be seen as "conservative" because he recognizes the importance of tradition, the authority of the Church, and unchanging truths and moral norms


"C" applies best here. The liberal believes in constant change or "progress" and for absolute moral autonomy of the individual, free from any higher moral authority. Thus the support of liberals for things such as homosexual behavior, abortion, etc., as "civil liberties" to be protected by the government.
(Also note one of the dictionary definitions of "liberal": Describes your typical self-described "liberal Catholic" pretty well, does it not?

Your claim that these terms "CANNOT be applied" to moral issues would shock most self-described liberals and conservatives alike.
Ask your typical self-described liberal "pro-choice" or "gay rights" activist, and he would probably consider his views on such issues very much a part of his liberalism, rather than extranious to it.
The same with a "religious conservative" who is pro-life and against "gay-rights."

Pushing the "culture of death" through support of abortion and other immorality is very much at the center of modern liberalism, like it or not. In fact, it is on these issues that the Left has been most consistent in recent decades.

The late, great Russell Kirk, a founding father of the modern conservative movement, said:~ from [i]The Conservative Mind[/i] (1953)

Also,~ from "Ten Conservative Principles", in the second chapter of [i]The Politics of Prudence[/i] (1993)

And your equation of convervatism with the Republican Party is just plain ignorant. Conservatism is a philosophy and set of principles. The GOP is a political party. Many Republican pols are not true conservatives. (And not all Democrats are liberals, for that matter, though they certainly have a monopoly on that party's top levels.)

I suggest you read the works of Kirk and other conservative thinkers, rather than simply getting all your "knowledge" on political philosophy from network tv.
There can be nothing more truly conservative than being an orthodox Catholic.[/quote]


couple things...

I'm not a conservative hater. I'm more conservative than liberal. Ask anyone who knows me. Don't really feel like I need to defend myself on that count to anyone online. call it bad debating, I don't care.

The bulk of your argument is based on dictionary definitions (definitely not the highest ecclesiastical authority) which specifically use the word political, a fact you chose to ignore.

every definition (except the last one, which i will come to) uses the word political. You promptly twist the definition to include the Church. For the definition of liberalism you choose a single definition which doesn't help you at all. At least I can't see it helping you. It does say 'the autonomy of the individual', but again, it specifies 'political philosophy'. It isn't necessarily talking about morality. It never says liberalism demans belief in no higher moral authority, you said that yourself.

The fifth definition of liberal which you include doesn't really help your argument either. It does use the word 'orthodoxy' but I'm assuming this isn't a Catholic dictionary? Because non-Catholics don't mean teh same thing when they say 'orthodox'. They usually mean conforms to social norms....social norms are sometimes moral issues but not always. Everyone has heard of things such as 'unorthodox teaching styles'. These teaching styles are not heretical (necessarily). In fact they can be quite good. So as a Catholic when I use the word orthodox I mean something completely different than an American protestant would mean. Basically what I mean is that orthodox and unorthodox in secular and religious setting mean very different things.

You read every single one of these definitions to mean what you wanted them to mean. They aren't talking about religion, not in a single one.

By the way I looked up the syllabus of errors and if you are right then it takes more critical reading than I have the energy to use right now. I worked 9 1/2 hours at a restaraunt that was on a 30 minute wait all day. I'm not playing the pity card, just saying that I'll have to reread it another time...however

In my quick scan of the document I didn't find anything denouncing political liberalism. In fact the only time the words 'liberal' or 'liberalism' appear are here..


65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.


And I think we can both agree this is not what we are talking about.
[quote]Your claim that these terms "CANNOT be applied" to moral issues would shock most self-described liberals and conservatives alike.
Ask your typical self-described liberal "pro-choice" or "gay rights" activist, and he would probably consider his views on such issues very much a part of his liberalism, rather than extranious to it.
The same with a "religious conservative" who is pro-life and against "gay-rights."[/quote]

It doesn't matter what would shock him. It doesn't matter what he thinks about that...abortion and homosexuality are not political issues, they are moral truths. Moral truths are moral truths. They are quite seperate from economic theories. And again, even you cannot refrain from using the word "religious" when saying conservative. It is because conservative alone means political...it does not mean religious.

and I definitely didn't equate conservatism to the republican party...Which is why I'm not a republican...

and by the way. I did like to ride tricycles, thank you very much.







Of course I think that moral issues should be a part of a politicians policy decisions. Unfortunately gay marriage and abortion have become very much a part of the political stage. They shouldn't be equated with a person's political beliefs, however. They are more part of their religion. We should vote for people whose moral beliefs coincide most closely to ours, but perhaps one day there will be a time when we have a real political choice instead of a religious one.


in the middle of writing this i got distracted and sorry if I forgot to address anything. Just tear me apart again and I'll try to repair the damage. again.

By the way, I'd like to see real quotes from popes condemning [i]political[/i] liberalism. Haven't seen any, only heard claims that they exist...



And one last thing...

it seems to me that you don't really understand my opinion at all. I am orthodox. I am also conservative. I'm just not good at debating or making my opinion known.

Edited August 12, 2007 by aalpha1989