why me Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Depends on the diocese. Some parishes, the one doing the leading is the priest. Your text is itty-bitty in the previous post. Hard for me to read.I corrected it. Is it okay now? I also posted something else from his blog. Can you read that? My point was simple. In his blog he seems to have it in for the lds church. Just my opinion, of course. And this is where he would get in trouble. I see nothing positive abut the lds church in his blog...just a critical blogs. If I had such a blog about the catholic church and I was still a catholic, would I be worthy of the communion? Would the priest administer the communion to me if he knew about such a blog?
MormonMason Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 The official position of the Church is that, yes, a person can be disciplined for apostasy for joining another church and advocating its teachings. Merely attending another church is not grounds for church discipline and is not considered apostasy.And, so as to partially preempt a CFR, I would like to mention that it is against the rules of the board to quote from or link to the source. I will instruct those interested to see their Bishop and ask to see the CHI, specifically page 57, or just ask the Bishop to look it up and tell you what it says about formally joining another church and related activities.
MiserereNobis Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 What blessings do they get from baptism that they still recieve after excommunication? (i'm sorr this is such a thread jack but it's fascinating to me)In Catholic theology, baptisms cannot be "undone" because a baptism leaves a mark on a person's soul that cannot be taken away. Excommunication is a formal sanction that means the person cannot receive ANY Sacraments (not just Holy Communion). The blessings of baptism, to use your phrase still remain: the ontological mark on your soul that makes you part of Christ's Church, and the removal of original sin. The blessings that one is now cut-off from all flow from the other Sacraments: Confession (the opportunity to have mortal sins forgiven), Mass (the opportunity to receive Communion), etc. Without the Sacraments, one is cut-off from Sanctifying Grace, which means one's spiritual life will wither and die.Since excommunication is a formal sanction, it requires a formal lifting. This depends on the nature of excommunication and who imposed it. If it was imposed by the Pope (or the Roman Curia under the Pope's direction), then Rome has to lift the excommunication. This happened a few years back to the Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X. They had been excommunicated under Pope John Paul II for illicitly receiving episcopal consecration without Papal permission. Pope Benedict XVI lifted those excommunications. He was the only one able to do so since the original excommunications had been confirmed by the Roman Curia.Abortion automatically excommunicates a Catholic as well, but this excommunication can be lifted by the Bishop or by a priest if the Bishop has formally delegated that authority to his priests (I believe that this is the case in most US dioceses -- it is the case in mine).
saemo Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) What blessings do they get from baptism that they still recieve after excommunication? (i'm sorr this is such a thread jack but it's fascinating to me)BIG subject. Baptismal graces (gifts of the Holy Spirit) are many and bountiful. But to the point of someone who has been excommunicated (or has self-excommunicated):- enables them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity)- gives them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit- allows them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, obedience, veracity, patience, filial piety) Edited September 24, 2012 by saemo
MiserereNobis Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Would the priest administer the communion to me if he knew about such a blog?This is governed by the Code of Canon Law, which is (as far as I can tell) roughly equivalent to the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions (though it is public for all to see). The relevant canon is:Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.I think most Bishops, priests, and canon lawyers would not consider a blog to be manifest grave sin, which means that the minister of Holy Communion could not deny the person admittance. However, this doesn't mean that the person should receive Communion, just that they cannot be denied Communion.
saemo Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 This is governed by the Code of Canon Law, which is (as far as I can tell) roughly equivalent to the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions (though it is public for all to see). The relevant canon is:I think most Bishops, priests, and canon lawyers would not consider a blog to be manifest grave sin, which means that the minister of Holy Communion could not deny the person admittance. However, this doesn't mean that the person should receive Communion, just that they cannot be denied Communion.Yes, I think it is difficult to make the comparison that is trying to be made, because the approach to morality is different. It is objective in Catholicism, and so a blog in and of itself? Could be the in the realm of occasion of sin? If a person were struggling with their faith (as this blogger is), they would be encouraged to seek the counsel of a priest. A person could air all these types of things, and more, without feeling they needed to be worried about excommunication.
saemo Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I corrected it. Is it okay now? I also posted something else from his blog. Can you read that? My point was simple. In his blog he seems to have it in for the lds church. Just my opinion, of course. And this is where he would get in trouble. I see nothing positive abut the lds church in his blog...just a critical blogs. If I had such a blog about the catholic church and I was still a catholic, would I be worthy of the communion? Would the priest administer the communion to me if he knew about such a blog? Yes on the first, no on the second.Seems to me its been a place to air what he is struggling with, maybe get all armchair psychologists and call it "acting out". Who knows.Honestly, I don't understand the need/desire to attend church and encourage others to struggle with you. I wouldn't know why the approach would be to excommunicate someone who is struggling either. In other words, I don't get it.
bluebell Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 The blessings of baptism, to use your phrase still remain: the ontological mark on your soul that makes you part of Christ's Church, and the removal of original sin. The blessings that one is now cut-off from all flow from the other Sacraments: Confession (the opportunity to have mortal sins forgiven), Mass (the opportunity to receive Communion), etc. Without the Sacraments, one is cut-off from Sanctifying Grace, which means one's spiritual life will wither and die.I'm still a bit confused.If an excommunicated person is still a part of Christ's church, then what does it matter if your sins can be forgiven or not, for example, or if your spiritual life dies? I guess what i'm asking is, can members of Christ church go to hell? What are the actual benefis, in the eternities, for being a member of Christ's church, if it's not forgiveness of sin and sanctifying grace?(thanks, btw, for humoring me in these questions, since they have nothing to do with the OP).
Scott Lloyd Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, there's this really cool thing that happens when a person leaves the Mormon Church....people can have differing opinions and do so without being viewed as lacking in credibility.I think why me nailed it when he suggested your opinion largely stems from the fact you're not clued in.
saemo Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 The official position of the Church is that, yes, a person can be disciplined for apostasy for joining another church and advocating its teachings. Merely attending another church is not grounds for church discipline and is not considered apostasy.And, so as to partially preempt a CFR, I would like to mention that it is against the rules of the board to quote from or link to the source. I will instruct those interested to see their Bishop and ask to see the CHI, specifically page 57, or just ask the Bishop to look it up and tell you what it says about formally joining another church and related activities.What is considered "advocating"?
saemo Posted September 24, 2012 Posted September 24, 2012 I'm still a bit confused.If an excommunicated person is still a part of Christ's church, then what does it matter if your sins can be forgiven or not, for example, or if your spiritual life dies? I guess what i'm asking is, can members of Christ church go to hell? What are the actual benefis, in the eternities, for being a member of Christ's church, if it's not forgiveness of sin and sanctifying grace?(thanks, btw, for humoring me in these questions, since they have nothing to do with the OP).There are Sacraments that are only given/received once. Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders. Then there are Sacraments that are given/received many times throughout one's life. Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick (major one being "last rites").A person who has been baptized and confirmed cannot be baptized and confirmed again. They are not cutoff from these Sacraments. They are cut off from Eucharist, Reconciliation, Marriage (if not married), Holy Order, Anointing of the Sick.If a person dies while in the state of mortal sin, it is Catholic teaching their soul is at grave risk. Will this person going to Hell? God is our judge, but yeah, as a Catholic, I'd be very concerned for my soul if I were in that position.This is why I said excommunication is very serious, as it removes the person from accessing what they need. Most importantly for this scenario, the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
volgadon Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Yes, there's this really cool thing that happens when a person leaves the Mormon Church....people can have differing opinions and do so without being viewed as lacking in credibility.So cool that none of us mindless automatons ever can until we leave. Scott's post was silly, yours is nastier.
bluebell Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 There are Sacraments that are only given/received once. Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders. Then there are Sacraments that are given/received many times throughout one's life. Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick (major one being "last rites").A person who has been baptized and confirmed cannot be baptized and confirmed again. They are not cutoff from these Sacraments. They are cut off from Eucharist, Reconciliation, Marriage (if not married), Holy Order, Anointing of the Sick.If a person dies while in the state of mortal sin, it is Catholic teaching their soul is at grave risk. Will this person going to Hell? God is our judge, but yeah, as a Catholic, I'd be very concerned for my soul if I were in that position.This is why I said excommunication is very serious, as it removes the person from accessing what they need. Most importantly for this scenario, the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.Thanks for the answers.
rpn Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Bro Twede was quoted in several articles that he was not called on the carpet for his Romney articles, but for temple content and his trying to persuade church members to leave. How long are you thinking leadership should have let him continue to do that from inside. It is only a national issue because Romney is running ---- of course Twede and his supporters used that angle to get attention.
MormonMason Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 What is considered "advocating"?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate?s=t
KevinG Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I want to share with Saemo that the local Catholic church scared one of our newly baptized families with anti-Mormon propaganda and gave them a "sponsor" who is coaching them to avoid the Mormons. I wonder what her feelings about them allowing this family to make their choice are?
ANACO Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) saemo, on 24 September 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:Yes, there's this really cool thing that happens when a person leaves the Mormon Church....people can have differing opinions and do so without being viewed as lacking in credibility.So cool that none of us mindless automatons ever can until we leave. Scott's post was silly, yours is nastier.There is a difference, of course, of leaving the LDS Church and, walking with one's wife, out of a LDS Sunday School class, over differences of opinion by viewing those who have those differing opinions as lacking in credibility.One is apostasy. The other is downright rude. Edited September 25, 2012 by ANACO
TAO Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I want to share with Saemo that the local Catholic church scared one of our newly baptized families with anti-Mormon propaganda and gave them a "sponsor" who is coaching them to avoid the Mormons. I wonder what her feelings about them allowing this family to make their choice are?Hmmm... why don't you go and knock on their door and deal with it directly? I mean, the way you sort of deal with these things is to make it 'unavoidable' if you know what I mean. So talk to them, and explain away some of the difficulties.
volgadon Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 saemo, on 24 September 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:Yes, there's this really cool thing that happens when a person leaves the Mormon Church....people can have differing opinions and do so without being viewed as lacking in credibility.There is a difference, of course, of leaving the LDS Church and, walking with one's wife, out of a LDS Sunday School class, over differences of opinion by viewing those who have those differing opinions as lacking in credibility.One is apostasy. The other is downright rude.There is also much to be said for reading comprehension. I refuse to believe that you don't know how.If you'll look, I said nearly. That is, we didn't walk out. I don't know about you, but we go to Sunday School to be edified by the scriptures and, in turn, better live the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ. I don't think that being made to feel like poor, benighted 'eathens desperately thirsting to be enlightened and civilised by American culture and "freedom," when not only did my wive's ancestors have a consitution seventy seven years before the USA did, she herself participated in a revolution when her right to vote according to the dictates of her conscience was taken away. Don't get me wrong, she has a deep admiration for the US constitution, but is deeply proud of the achievements, culture, history, and traditions of her own people without feeling the need to impose them on anyone else as the superior, right, and only way. I always carry around a copy of my country's anthem, which speaks of the deepseated, two thousand year old aspiration to be a free people in our own land, and as long as our hearts still yearn for that, our hope is not lost, come what may. Guess what, I've actually got both pioneer ancestors, and even ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, but when Sunday School goes jingost, I bite my tongue not to quote Disraeli on the ancestors of a certain right honourable gentleman.I've been to the same lessons in three countries outside of Utah. I've never seen them turn into a political platform or a yay-for-us fest. What is wrong with actually focusing on the gospel? That is what I want from Sunday School. Pushing one's own socio-political platform as the gospel of Christ is just as rude, if not more, than walking out of such a lesson. 2
saemo Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 I want to share with Saemo that the local Catholic church scared one of our newly baptized families with anti-Mormon propaganda and gave them a "sponsor" who is coaching them to avoid the Mormons. I wonder what her feelings about them allowing this family to make their choice are?Sorry, I've heard too many stories from LDS regarding Catholics to not be skeptical.
saemo Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 There is also much to be said for reading comprehension. I refuse to believe that you don't know how.If you'll look, I said nearly. That is, we didn't walk out. I don't know about you, but we go to Sunday School to be edified by the scriptures and, in turn, better live the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ. I don't think that being made to feel like poor, benighted 'eathens desperately thirsting to be enlightened and civilised by American culture and "freedom," when not only did my wive's ancestors have a consitution seventy seven years before the USA did, she herself participated in a revolution when her right to vote according to the dictates of her conscience was taken away. Don't get me wrong, she has a deep admiration for the US constitution, but is deeply proud of the achievements, culture, history, and traditions of her own people without feeling the need to impose them on anyone else as the superior, right, and only way. I always carry around a copy of my country's anthem, which speaks of the deepseated, two thousand year old aspiration to be a free people in our own land, and as long as our hearts still yearn for that, our hope is not lost, come what may. Guess what, I've actually got both pioneer ancestors, and even ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, but when Sunday School goes jingost, I bite my tongue not to quote Disraeli on the ancestors of a certain right honourable gentleman.I've been to the same lessons in three countries outside of Utah. I've never seen them turn into a political platform or a yay-for-us fest. What is wrong with actually focusing on the gospel? That is what I want from Sunday School. Pushing one's own socio-political platform as the gospel of Christ is just as rude, if not more, than walking out of such a lesson.I really have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for the rant!
saemo Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) So cool that none of us mindless automatons ever can until we leave. Scott's post was silly, yours is nastier.Scott can make a comment that implies every person who leaves Mormonism should think alike, yet, it is nastier to skip the implications and say LDS do?Okee dokee.Rhetorical remarks seem to not be understood in these parts. Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo
volgadon Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) I really have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for the rant!That actually wasn't posted in response to you (though post #112 was a response to what reads as a snarky comment). ANACO was looking for a clever putdown to use on me, quite possibly trying to paint me as apostate as well, I dunno. Edited September 25, 2012 by volgadon
saemo Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 That actually wasn't posted in response to you (though post #112 was). ANACO was looking for a clever putdown to use on me, quite possibly trying to paint me as apostate as well, I dunno.Oh, ok. Thanks.
volgadon Posted September 25, 2012 Posted September 25, 2012 Scott can make a comment that implies every person who leaves Mormonism should think alike, yet, it is nastier to skip the implications and say LDS do?Okee dokee.If I were home today when he posted, I would definitely have posted a strong objection. But, guess what happened. You posted something with far nastier wording. Should you expect people to call Scott on it, but not you?
Recommended Posts