[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

There are some scared Catholics out there right now.

Some very happy ones too.

[subego]

Only if they listen to... the media.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If even atheists can get into heaven, then what does excommunication matter?

Excommunication puts one into the "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" area

This better explains what Pope Francis was speaking of.
What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers

Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:22).

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains" (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: "their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them." Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.

Similarly, he wrote: "[I]s God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (Rom 3:29-30).

The press loves to takes snippets of what someone says and spins it to their liking.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The press loves to takes snippets of what someone says and spins it to their liking.

Kind of like the church with the Bible?

BOOM, HEADSHOT

[Chongo]

Which church? There are thousands of Protestant denominations and non denominational churches. Every time there's a dispute they break up and start their own church.

Which Bible? The one in which Martin Luther removed 7 books and parts of others and added the word alone to Romans 3:28?

[andi*pandi]

People have been editing the bible since they started writing it. (and maybe before)

[Chongo]

This reminds me of the telephone game


http://www.jasonbachcartoons.com/catholic-09.html

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Which church? There are thousands of Protestant denominations and non denominational churches. Every time there's a dispute they break up and start their own church.

Gee, that's exactly how the Catholic church became separated from the rest of the Orthodox faith. Oh wait, they didn't voluntarily separate, they were excommunicated.

Which Bible? The one in which Martin Luther removed 7 books...

That never happened. Luther reorganized the Bible, but didn't remove any books from it, and he was following the previously unheeded advice of a Doctor of the Church, St Jerome, when he did so. The removal came much later when some bible publishers removed the Deuterocanonicals to save printing costs. No one was reading those books in church anyways.

...and added the word alone to Romans 3:28?

You mean, just like the Catholic church added "begotten" to John 1:18 when it doesn't belong there?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gee, that's exactly how the Catholic church became separated from the rest of the Orthodox faith. Oh wait, they didn't voluntarily separate, they were excommunicated.

You mean the mutual declarations. Those were lifted in 1965

Catholic-Orthodox Declaration

That never happened. Luther reorganized the Bible, but didn't remove any books from it, and he was following the previously unheeded advice of a Doctor of the Church, St Jerome, when he did so. The removal came much later when some bible publishers removed the Deuterocanonicals to save printing costs. No one was reading those books in church anyways.

I stand corrected

You mean, just like the Catholic church added "begotten" to John 1:18 when it doesn't belong there?

Odd Luther would translate that way.

18 Niemand hat Gott je gesehen; der eingeborene Sohn, der in des Vaters Schoß ist, der hat es uns verkündigt. (German)
18 No one has ever seen God; the only begotten son, which is in the father's lap, which has declared us. (English)

Young's Literal translation, among others also uses the word "begotten".


The odd thing is the NAB, the approved translation for use in Mass does not.

18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You mean the mutual declarations.

It was a face-saving manoeuvre on Rome's part. They were being excommunicated, and they needed some kind of response, however lame and unwarranted. They had no justification for excommunicating the other side, since they weren't doing anything contrary to doctrine. Rome was.

Odd Luther would translate that way.

He was following the example of the Vulgate. Every early Protestant translation did. It remains in most of them to this day.

The odd thing is the NAB, the approved translation for use in Mass does not.

The NAB is a very new translation, so they rely on the latest scholarship. The Vulgate, and thus Rome, is responsible for adding "begotten" where it clearly didn't belong. It was obviously a word choice lifted and dropped into GJohn from the Nicene Creed.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

It was a face-saving manoeuvre on Rome's part. They were being excommunicated, and they needed some kind of response, however lame and unwarranted. They had no justification for excommunicating the other side, since they weren't doing anything contrary to doctrine. Rome was.

The schism had more to do with the primacy of the See of Peter than any doctrinal differences. Look how well it has worked for the autocephalous Orthodox churches. They cant' call a synod of bishops because no has the authoirty do do so because they have excommunicated each other.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The schism had more to do with the primacy of the See of Peter than any doctrinal differences.

The belief that the See of Peter has primacy IS a doctrinal difference.

And the rest of the church excommunicated Rome because of Rome's continued adoption of new doctrines without the proper process, i.e. a doctrinal Council.

Look how well it has worked for the autocephalous Orthodox churches. They cant' call a synod of bishops because no has the authoirty do do so because they have excommunicated each other.

I don't know where you get your information from. The Orthodox churches exist in full communion with each other.

Orthodox Church organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been some minor schisms, but that's true in the Catholic church as well.

As for holding a synod (or a General Council, which I think is what you really meant), that could happen if there was any motivation, but Orthodox doctrine is pretty stable and settled, unlike the Rome church.

[Chongo]

As for holding a synod (or a General Council, which I think is what you really meant), that could happen if there was any motivation, but Orthodox doctrine is pretty stable and settled, unlike the Rome church.

Like permitting divorce and remarriage (up to three times) even when Jesus himself said:

Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Here are the books on Catholic doctrine.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The removal came much later when some bible publishers removed the Deuterocanonicals to save printing costs. No one was reading those books in church anyways.

No one was reading them? They are read in Mass on a daily basis as part two year cycle, and on Sundays as part of a three year cycle. The Orthodox traditions also include them in their canon

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like permitting divorce and remarriage (up to three times) even when Jesus himself said: Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Oh, you don't want to go there with me.

As an ex-Catholic, I have lots of grudges with the church, but number two (after no contraceptives) is: annulments are for sale in the Catholic church. I know several people who bought annulments, and every one of them had long marriages with children, and the circumstances of their separation were trivial. And I know several Catholics who had to get remarried in Anglican churches because they just couldn't cough up the dough to buy an annulment. It's pure greed.

Don't tell me that the Catholic church faithfully follows Jesus' teachings when clearly the money-changers are running the temple.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No one was reading them? They are read in Mass on a daily basis as part two year cycle, and on Sundays as part of a three year cycle. The Orthodox traditions also include them in their canon

I meant no one was reading them in the churches using English translations, which the Catholic and Orthodox churches still weren't using.

Still, very little of the Deuterocanonicals are read in Sunday mass at Catholic churches. The reading from the Old Testament almost always related to the NT reading, and very little of the NT references thoughts or events from the Deuterocanonicals.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Oh, you don't want to go there with me.

As an ex-Catholic, I have lots of grudges with the church, but number two (after no contraceptives) is: annulments are for sale in the Catholic church.

I wouldn't have minded the fee (IIRC it was <$200) but was pretty annoyed that after jumping through all the right hoops and filling out the right forms with the recommended 6 mo wait time, it had to be delivered personally to the vatican and arrived back here too late for the actual wedding. Does the vatican not use Fedex? Oh, and it was a Jewish wedding being annulled, so.... yeah, that makes sense.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Oh, you don't want to go there with me.

As an ex-Catholic, I have lots of grudges with the church, but number two (after no contraceptives) is: annulments are for sale in the Catholic church. I know several people who bought annulments, and every one of them had long marriages with children, and the circumstances of their separation were trivial. And I know several Catholics who had to get remarried in Anglican churches because they just couldn't cough up the dough to buy an annulment. It's pure greed.

Don't tell me that the Catholic church faithfully follows Jesus' teachings when clearly the money-changers are running the temple.

Length of marriage or children does make for a valid marriage. Say the husband never intended to keep his vow of fidelity, like my sister in laws first husband. He banged his ex girlfriend on their wedding night. Had she not found out and had children and remained married for several years, then found out, she still would be granted an annulment.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I wouldn't have minded the fee (IIRC it was <$200) but was pretty annoyed that after jumping through all the right hoops and filling out the right forms with the recommended 6 mo wait time, it had to be delivered personally to the vatican and arrived back here too late for the actual wedding. Does the vatican not use Fedex? Oh, and it was a Jewish wedding being annulled, so.... yeah, that makes sense.

The Church considers all marriage valid until proven otherwise.
Frequently Asked Questions

BTW The State of California charges $435 to file an annulment/divorces, and $435 to file the response.
http://www.shastacourts.com/PDF/filingfees.pdf (page 6) Does that mean the state is selling annulments/divorces?

I meant no one was reading them in the churches using English translations, which the Catholic and Orthodox churches still weren't using. Still, very little of the Deuterocanonicals are read in Sunday mass at Catholic churches. The reading from the Old Testament almost always related to the NT reading, and very little of the NT references thoughts or events from the Deuterocanonicals.

In the last three months alone we had readings from , Baruch, Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom.

Ex Catholic? Not to be more of an ass than most of you think I am, but when I see hear someone say they are an ex Catholic it reminds me of a call I heard on Catholic Answers Live. A caller said he was an "ex Catholic" The host asked if the caller "had sent their Bishop a formal letter stating so?" If they had not, they are merely a lapsed Catholic.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ex Catholic? Not to be more of an ass than most of you think I am, but when I see hear someone say they are an ex Catholic it reminds me of a call I heard on Catholic Answers Live. A caller said he was an "ex Catholic" The host asked if the caller "had sent their Bishop a formal letter stating so?" If they had not, they are merely a lapsed Catholic.

So what you're telling me is Catholicism is an opt-out religion?
Everyone hates opt-out agreements.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I wouldn't have minded the fee (IIRC it was <$200) but was pretty annoyed that after jumping through all the right hoops and filling out the right forms with the recommended 6 mo wait time, it had to be delivered personally to the vatican and arrived back here too late for the actual wedding. Does the vatican not use Fedex? Oh, and it was a Jewish wedding being annulled, so.... yeah, that makes sense.

The funny thing is the Vatican post office is years ahead of the Italian post office.

Pretty stamps too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not to be more of an ass than most of you think I am

I don't think you're an ass. I do get sad when you bail, which is not what you're doing here I want to be quick to note.

FWIW, when it comes to Catholicism, you clearly know what you're talking about. Only a real jackass would be interested in rejecting that body of knowledge if Catholicism is the subject at hand. Like in a Pope thread.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what you're telling me is Catholicism is an opt-out religion?
Everyone hates opt-out agreements.

I would not call it an opt out agreement. If someone truly wants out, they can make it official by informing the local Bishop in writing.

[Laminar]

So what you're saying is that unless the "user" takes specific action, that user will continue to be considered Catholic?

[subego]

It would be pretty shitty for God to revoke your baptism without the proper paperwork.

[andi*pandi]

Which must be filled out in triplicate, and hand delivered by the Ambassador to the Vatican.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It would be pretty shitty for God to revoke your baptism without the proper paperwork.

Why does God need paperwork?

Why does God need a starship

[Shaddim]

To be fair, just about all major denominations require an official declaration of some sort, usually in writing, to be taken off their rolls if you've ever formalized a membership with them. Otherwise they just count you as absent. The Mormons require medical excuses if you miss too many services, I guess they come and take away your underwear if you don't. (j/k, of course)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

if you've ever formalized a membership with them

This is key, though. And I'm not sure if Chongo is holding us to that standard. At what point are you Catholic? I'd probably assume when you're baptized, but that doesn't strike me as official as something like say, confirmation.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So what you're saying is that unless the "user" takes specific action, that user will continue to be considered Catholic?

Yes.

Originally Posted by subego 

It would be pretty shitty for God to revoke your baptism without the proper paperwork.

One cannot be "unbaptized."

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Which must be filled out in triplicate, and hand delivered by the Ambassador to the Vatican.

No, just a letter to the local Bishop will do

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Why does God need paperwork?

God doesn't, the local Diocese does.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is key, though. And I'm not sure if Chongo is holding us to that standard. At what point are you Catholic? I'd probably assume when you're baptized, but that doesn't strike me as official as something like say, confirmation.

If your parents a Catholic, then at baptism. Confirmation can be looked at as the Catholic equivalent of a Bar Mitzvah

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

God doesn't, the local Diocese does.

Obviously I don't understand why.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If your parents a Catholic, then at baptism.

What if you parents are lapsed Catholics at baptism? BTW, this totally is opt-out then, since at no point do you choose to join the church.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Obviously I don't understand why.

As mentioned earlier, to take you off the official Church rolls

What if you parents are lapsed Catholics at baptism? BTW, this totally is opt-out then, since at no point do you choose to join the church.

This question has been asked on Catholic Answers before.

if your son and his wife are entirely lapsed from their faith and have no intention of practicing their Catholic faith at all, then the priest is right to delay baptism. One of the requirements for the baptism of children is “that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this” (CIC 868 §1).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As mentioned earlier, to take you off the official Church rolls

What's the point of the church rolls?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This question has been asked on Catholic Answers before.

That's not the question. If the priest doesn't realize your parents are lapsed, is your baptism official?

[subego]

I thought even an unbeliever could perform a baptism.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW The State of California charges $435 to file an annulment/divorces, and $435 to file the response.http://www.shastacourts.com/PDF/filingfees.pdf (page 6) Does that mean the state is selling annulments/divorces?

Call it a paperwork fee either way, but the difference is, the state is not saying that divorces and annulments are evil.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Call it a paperwork fee either way, but the difference is, the state is not saying that divorces and annulments are evil.

The fee is so they don't judge you.

[subego]

It's more like shipping and handling.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What's the point of the church rolls?

that's part of the answer below.

That's not the question. If the priest doesn't realize your parents are lapsed, is your baptism official?

Yes. It's unlikely a priest will baptize a child without the parents being registered in the parish. Why would they register if they don't intend to be active members of the Church?

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought even an unbeliever could perform a baptism.

No, anyone can administer the Sacrament of Baptism, even an atheist.
The ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Baptism is a deacon or priest. In case where the danger of death is imminent, anyone can baptize as long as they use the proper form and matter, and has the proper intention. Many babies have been baptized by non Catholic nurses.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

that's part of the answer below.

I'm afraid I don't follow

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yes. It's unlikely a priest will baptize a child without the parents being registered in the parish. Why would they register if they don't intend to be active members of the Church?

Well, the details aren't clear to me since I was a toddler, but I assume they were giving me the same foundation that they were given by their parents. While I know you'll disagree, there's obviously philosophical differences between Catholics as to the importance of attending Mass regularly, etc.

Things were extra fun when my second grade teacher, who asked every Monday who attended Mass informed me/my parents I would not be able to take Holy Communion unless I started showing up. As you can imagine, I went a few times, got the ok to take Communion, and my parents never took me again after the ceremony.

[subego]

Do you think your parents view(ed) such things as holy rites, or just part of being a community?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you think your parents view(ed) such things as holy rites, or just part of being a community?

Honestly, my best guess is tradition.

[subego]

Did you go to Catholic school?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did you go to Catholic school?

Nine years.

[subego]

Beyond turning you into a bitter, empty shell of a man, how was it?

[Laminar]

Things are starting to make sense now.

[The Final Dakar]

Well, to be honest the point of the schooling was not the religious content but private = better. Obviously some of the religious content was desired (by who I don't know) because of the communion thing.

Anyway, you'd have to be specific in what regard. When dealing with a lot of nuns as teachers and absurd social norms, its going to have some bad or unlikeable experiences.

To this day if I see the the kids in uniform walking outside in shorts I lose my shit because we had to wear pants...because. And we had like maybe one fan per classroom then. (I'm not bitter they have A/C now).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Things are starting to make sense now.

Hahaha**** you

But seriously, I'm pretty sure my religious upbringing has been out in the open before.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hahaha**** you

But seriously, I'm pretty sure my religious upbringing has been out in the open before.

Well at least you weren't posting here when you were 15 years old. I'm just glad I've changed usernames a couple times since then; it's pretty embarrassing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well, to be honest the point of the schooling was not the religious content but private = better. Obviously some of the religious content was desired (by who I don't know) because of the communion thing.

Anyway, you'd have to be specific in what regard. When dealing with a lot of nuns as teachers and absurd social norms, its going to have some bad or unlikeable experiences.

To this day if I see the the kids in uniform walking outside in shorts I lose my shit because we had to wear pants...because. And we had like maybe one fan per classroom then. (I'm not bitter they have A/C now).

I could see the religious thing not being important.

You don't sign your kid up for Catholic school and then go all iconoclast over it. The last thing your kid needs is extra hassle from a nun.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Well at least you weren't posting here when you were 15 years old. I'm just glad I've changed usernames a couple times since then; it's pretty embarrassing.

That was you?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That was you?

Yes, I'm CATS C.E.O.

[Chongo]

On the upside, Dakar hasn't gone "Bill Maher"