Kerry just excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Tigers2B1

Well I suggest you look at 'em oncce again. The title has a question mark and the OP says “seems.”

I’m not going to bugger the fly’s ass on this one, not going to split hairs; I’ll just advise you to reread the post to which you’re responding, and you’ll find that I worded it precisely and accurately.

The information in your OP has turned out to be false; the question it asked has an unambiguously negative answer. Your later efforts to imply that Kerry should be denied communion are unsubstantiated. Time to give it up, to admit that in all likelihood it would be highly nonkosher to deny him communion.

Daniel

[minty_green]

@Captain Amazing

That document is the basis of the Catholic ecumenical movement, and it seems to include adults. In fact, if you look at what I quoted "The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ… ", it talks about them growing up believing in Christ, so we’re talking about adults here.

Sorry, but I disagree that the statement is clear w/r/t adults. A child can “grow up” and still not be an adult. I agree that yours is a reasonable reading, but not that it is a necessary reading.

[Tigers2B1]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’m not going to bugger the fly’s ass…

But you could - right?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Tigers2B1

But you could - right?

:rolleyes:

[Captain_Amazing]

@minty green

Sorry, but I disagree that the statement is clear w/r/t adults. A child can “grow up” and still not be an adult. I agree that yours is a reasonable reading, but not that it is a necessary reading.

Well, here’s the complete document:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I’m pretty sure, though, that the Catholic church doesn’t consider Protestants hellbound anymore.

[bizzwire]

Once again, we have gotten ourselves into a lather due to the shitheel actions of a media whore.

FromToday’s Boston Globe

Vatican says it was duped on Kerry stance

"Marc Balestrieri, head of a conservative Catholic group called De Fide, has been pushing for the church to rule that the Democratic presidential candidate has inflicted excommunication on himself because he supports a woman’s right to an abortion.
.
.

But yesterday, the Vatican denied his assertions, which received widespread coverage in major US media.
Father Augustine Di Noia, third-ranking official in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, said that Balestrieri had hoodwinked the church by misrepresenting himself.

Balestrieri submitted a query to the congregation several months ago, asking if someone who publicly supported abortion rights would be guilty of heresy and incur what the church calls ''automatic excommunication."

Case closed

[minty_green]

@Captain Amazing

I’m pretty sure, though, that the Catholic church doesn’t consider Protestants hellbound anymore.

Again, I disagree. I see no indication in that document (nor have I ever heard any declaration from Church) that those who do not follow the One True Faith can still be saved if they believe in Jebus. I see a lot of “One True Faith” stuff in the link, but nothing that says God forgives you even if you believe that the Pope is full of shit.

[UDS]

@minty green

Again, I disagree. I see no indication in that document (nor have I ever heard any declaration from Church) that those who do not follow the One True Faith can still be saved if they believe in Jebus. I see a lot of “One True Faith” stuff in the link, but nothing that says God forgives you even if you believe that the Pope is full of shit.

Failing to find an affirmative teaching that non-Catholics can be saved is not the same as finding an affirmative teaching that they cannot.

However, this may help. From the Catechism, starting at para 836:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization . . .

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church . . .

The Church and non-Christians

Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways . . . .

When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant . . .

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

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.

. . . In ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him . . .

I’ve edited this to focus specifically on passages relevant to salvation. Feel free to consult the original here

The bolding is mine. The only positive affirmation that any group cannot be saved relates to those who, knowing that it was necessary to participate in the Catholic Church, refused to do so. “Having been told” is not the same as “knowing”. The Catechism plainly contemplates that Jews, Muslim, other non-Christians and the completely non-religious may be saved.

[minty_green]

I disagree that “having been told” is, ipso facto, not the same as “knowing.” Further, I suspect that the language is intentionally vague. I mean, Jeez, how hard would it be to say “It’s okay if you affirmatively reject the One True Faith as long as you still love God and act nice”? Instead, we get squishy language about how it’s okay if folks reject the church “through no fault of their own.” What the heck does that mean?

[Captain_Amazing]

@minty green

I disagree that “having been told” is, ipso facto, not the same as “knowing.” Further, I suspect that the language is intentionally vague. I mean, Jeez, how hard would it be to say “It’s okay if you affirmatively reject the One True Faith as long as you still love God and act nice”? Instead, we get squishy language about how it’s okay if folks reject the church “through no fault of their own.” What the heck does that mean?

You’re reading an English translation of a legal document written by a committee, that was drafted in Italian and then translated into Latin before it was made official, and you want precision?

But it means what it says. If you know that Catholicism is true and yet you reject it anyway,you’re screwed. If you honestly don’t know that Catholicism is true, for instance, if you were raised non-Catholic, and yet you honestly try to serve God and do His will, there’s room for salvation there.

[Polycarp]

@Captain Amazing

You’re reading an English translation of a legal document written by a committee, that was drafted in Italian and then translated into Latin before it was made official, and you want precision?

But it means what it says. If you know that Catholicism is true and yet you reject it anyway,you’re screwed. If you honestly don’t know that Catholicism is true, for instance, if you were raised non-Catholic, and yet you honestly try to serve God and do His will, there’s room for salvation there.

Yeah, but remember that minty is a lawyer. That’s not a snide putdown of his profession; it’s recognition that he’s spent many years being inculcated into the mindset that every detail not nailed down airtight has room for “play” – and he’s bringing that mindset to this document.

Minty, the Captain is right on target as regards the major contrast he’s drawing, from everything I’ve read about Catholicism, including a woman theologian trained at the Pontifical University explicitly addressing extra ecclesiam nihil salus on another message board.

And remember that this is a generalized teaching for the edification of the faithful – so that they won’t, e.g., announce that the Church says all Baptists are going to Hell. There are undoubtedly some stringent canons and guidelines for dealing with “borderline cases” – e.g., the Baptist who became a Mormon, then attended RCIA at Our Lady of Mount Carmel for a few months, before finally converting to Armenian Orthodox.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Polycarp

Yeah, but remember that minty is a lawyer. That’s not a snide putdown of his profession; it’s recognition that he’s spent many years being inculcated into the mindset that every detail not nailed down airtight has room for “play” – and he’s bringing that mindset to this document.

And that’s ok, because the definition of heresy is a legal definition. However, for one, I’m not a canon lawyer (or even a Catholic) and don’t have access to a library of canon law. For another, there’s not one document that says, “Protestants aren’t heretics”. It’s a bunch of papal bulls, conciliar documents, guidelines, curial documents, and legal decisions, all written in such a way as to contradict all the pre-Vatican II documents that said that Protestants were heretics without coming out and saying the pre-Vatican II documents were wrong.

[tomndebb]

Canon Law defines heresy as a deliberate rejection of a Catholic truth by a member of the Church. Someone raised outside the church cannot really be a heretic.

I’d be curious to see a Catholic pronouncement prior to Vatican II, but more than one generation removed from the Reformation, that described Protestants as heretics. (There may well be one, but I do not remember encountering such a declaration from the Church (as opposed to from some Catholic apologist with no more authority than his own belief). For example, even the pre-Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia, itself not an official Church document, rarely mentions the word heresy in its articles on Lutheranism, Calvinism, or Protestantism, and then usually in reference to specific acts, not to the later generations of believers in those movements.)

Since there is no document corresponding to the U.S. Constitution in Christianty, there is no appeal to Strict Constructionism (although there are occasional appeals to Original Intent) and Christian churches (especially the RCC) tend to be rather comforatble with the “living” nature of Divine Revelation.
(There are churches and people who attempt to equate Scripture to a constitution, but the the lack of actual constitutional information such as the definition of structure and the roles of persons in authority have tended to interfere with that assertion, leaving us with several hundred groups with disparate claims to what Scripture ordains in a constitutional manner.)

[minty_green]

@Captain Amazing

But it means what it says. If you know that Catholicism is true and yet you reject it anyway,you’re screwed.

This strikes me as a non sequitur, akin to saying “I know x is true, but I reject that knowledge and instead believe that x is not true.”

[Captain_Amazing]

@minty green

This strikes me as a non sequitur, akin to saying “I know x is true, but I reject that knowledge and instead believe that x is not true.”

Except, according to Catholicism, that’s what a sin is. It’s when you know doing x is wrong, and yet you do x anyway.

[Excalibre]

One of the above posts mentions being “truly baptised” or something similar. Does that mean any baptism in the name of the trinity (as in, not counting Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness baptisms?) Only Catholic and Orthodox baptisms (because they’re in somewhat closer theological alignment, right?) What does that mean?

And what is the Church’s current position on extra ecclesium nihil salus, or whatever the phrase is?

[minty_green]

@Captain Amazing

Except, according to Catholicism, that’s what a sin is. It’s when you know doing x is wrong, and yet you do x anyway.

Now you’re justy being silly.

[tomndebb]

Excalibre, the Catholic Church recognizes all Trinitarian baptisms. When a non-Catholic Christian enters the Catholic Church, if they have a record of Baptism from a church that follows the standard Christian form, they are accepted without Baptism. If they do not have a record of Baptism, but they are entering from a chuch that performs the standard Chrsitian Baptism, they are “conditionally” baptized with the words “If you have not been baptized, before, I baptize you. . . .” This recognizes that there is one Baptism in the Lord and that it is valid for all Christians.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is addressed in the ccurrent Catechism in Paragraphs 846, 847, and 848. (The explanation given is not some new fuzzy feel-good change to tradition since Vatican II; in the early 1950s, the Church excommunicated Fr. Feeney of Boston for insisting the “Outside the Church, no salvation” meant that only Catholics were going to heaven.) While there have been people who felt the way that Fr. Feney did through the years, a review of the history of the phrase shows that it was most often used in the manner indicated by the passage from the Catechism.