Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-17-2008, 05:49 AM   #1366
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,426

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 05:49 AM   #1367
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
Quote:
ghoulslime wrote View Post

'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 06:48 AM   #1368
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
The first and most important reason for excommunication is to bring the individual face to face with a very stark choice; his way or the Church's way. Naturally, the entire Church hopes and prays for the person's repentance and reconciliaiton.

It is also a public statement by the Church that there are boundaries that one must not cross and certain acts which are gravely wrong to both the individual and to others who are harmed in some way by the crime. Not all grave sins are canonical crimes and it is only for canonical crime(s) that someone can be excommunicated. These would be things like heresy, schism, and abortion. Canon law, however, has a long list of factors that must be considered that mitigate or even remove liability for canonical crimes. That is why I said earlier that you have to try really hard to incur it.

It doesn't get you kicked out of the Church, though you lose certain rights and it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to hell, since only God is always 100% right about the state of someone's soul. But it is serious stuff and most Catholics, even weak ones, would just as soon not be excommunicated.
That still doesn't explain why excommunication is necessary, if God really does make the ultimate decision on your soul.

As you stated, these people are not actually kicked out of the Church, so they are still hoping they can be brought back into the fold. So, why excommunicate for some but not other sins?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 06:58 AM   #1369
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
That still doesn't explain why excommunication is necessary, if God really does make the ultimate decision on your soul.

As you stated, these people are not actually kicked out of the Church, so they are still hoping they can be brought back into the fold. So, why excommunicate for some but not other sins?
Excommunication is, as it is often called, a "medicinal penalty". It is supposed to make clear to the person how grave his sins are and that they do jeopardize his soul. Only a fool or a real tough guy (which is the same thing) would want to face God in that state.

We are all guilty of various sins to various degrees. But heresy, schism and the others are not only serious but they are totally within our control. They are also gravely damaging to others. So, they get a special status. There are penalties attached to it that should get the person's attention.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 07:01 AM   #1370
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
That still doesn't explain why excommunication is necessary, if God really does make the ultimate decision on your soul.

As you stated, these people are not actually kicked out of the Church, so they are still hoping they can be brought back into the fold. So, why excommunicate for some but not other sins?
You really want to go down the rabbit hole, nkb? This thread could go on for pages without a satisfactory answer to that question. Look at how long it took to get a simple concession that all Roman Catholics do not think with one mind. Please notice that that happened only with my explicit acknowledgement that Lily has a right to think of them as "bad" Catholics.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 07:08 AM   #1371
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
You really want to go down the rabbit hole, nkb? This thread could go on for pages without a satisfactory answer to that question. Look at how long it took to get a simple concession that all Roman Catholics do not think with one mind. Please notice that that happened only with my explicit acknowledgement that Lily has a right to think of them as "bad" Catholics.
Do you really want to start this again? I thought you had achieved clarity and you haven't. All real (i.e. professing) Catholics do think with one mind about the doctrines of the church, to the extent that they obey-- perhaps grudgingly or with legitimate reservations. But they obey. That is the bottom line. By definition, anyone who does not accept the doctrines of the Church puts himself in a bad position. If he is fool enough to try to persuade others, then he risks heresy and schism, which are grounds for excommunication. That, of course, merely ratifies what has already happened. They are, objectively, bad Catholics. That is not my opinion. It is objective fact.

The Church is not a democracy. It's teachings are not arrived at by consensus. This has implications for those who want to identify with it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 07:13 AM   #1372
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
Do you really want to start this again? I thought you had achieved clarity and you haven't. All real (i.e. professing) Catholics do think with one mind about the doctrines of the church, to the extent that they obey-- perhaps grudgingly or with legitimate reservations. But they obey. That is the bottom line. By definition, anyone who does not accept the doctrines of the Church puts himself in a bad position. If he is fool enough to try to persuade others, then he risks heresy and schism, which are grounds for excommunication. That, of course, merely ratifies what has already happened. They are, objectively, bad Catholics. That is not my opinion. It is objective fact.

The Church is not a democracy. It's teachings are not arrived at by consensus. This has implications for those who want to identify with it.
Lily, I was talking to nkb. You and I concluded our little discussion on a reasonably happy note. Let's keep it that way.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 08:37 AM   #1373
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A Clean up Operation

I completely missed this message the first time. There are some things that need clarification in here, if not for your sake, then for others.

Quote:
Irreligious wrote View Post
Ex-communicating large numbers of people who still claim to believe in the church's teaching, except where they otherwise disagree, would seriously affect the church's revenues. It's doubtful that this would escape the practical notice of the church hierarchy.
I hope you now understand that this is nonsense. There is hope for repentance until we draw our last breath. The Church is not going to kick masses of sinners out. The Church is their hospital.

Quote:
No, it won't have anything to do with the truth, but if certain teachings become unpalatable or untenable to large numbers of Roman Catholics, it stands to reason that a miraculous re-interpretation of church teachings will be in the offing eventually, such as the whole deal with limbo, eating meat on Fridays and the idea of being separated from God instead of roasting in hell for eternity.
Again, wrong and a mixture of apples and oranges.

No "miraculous" reinterpretation of church teachings has ever occured and never will. No meat eating on Fridays was never a dogma; it was and is a discipline and disciplines can be changed whenever. Hell is still a reality and it is still a very terrible outcome; but the way we talk about it has changed somewhat. That may not be good but there is no reinterpretation of the doctrine involved.

Limbo was never dogmatically declared. The Church has always said that it did not know about the fate of infants and that the best we could do was entrust them to God. My understanding is that the Church has officially decided that it can speak definitively about their fate.

Quote:
Either way, it makes no real nevermind to me, though I think the Catholic church is wise to avoid unnecessarily ruffling the feathers of your marginal Catholics. That is, unless the rest of you hardliners are all independently wealthy enough to support the church by yourselves.
By now I hope that you see that money has precious little to do with it. And yes, the money of the faithful is enough to support the Church.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 08:47 AM   #1374
CAPTAIN-OBVIOUS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
I completely missed this message the first time. There are some things that need clarification in here, if not for your sake, then for others.

I hope you now understand that this is nonsense. There is hope for repentance until we draw our last breath. The Church is not going to kick masses of sinners out. The Church is their hospital.

Again, wrong and a mixture of apples and oranges.

No "miraculous" reinterpretation of church teachings has ever occured and never will. No meat eating on Fridays was never a dogma; it was and is a discipline and disciplines can be changed whenever. Hell is still a reality and it is still a very terrible outcome; but the way we talk about it has changed somewhat. That may not be good but there is no reinterpretation of the doctrine involved.

Limbo was never dogmatically declared. The Church has always said that it did not know about the fate of infants and that the best we could do was entrust them to God. My understanding is that the Church has officially decided that it can speak definitively about their fate.



By now I hope that you see that money has precious little to do with it. And yes, the money of the faithful is enough to support the Church.
Limbo was dogmatically declared. The pope is teh infaliable guy ZOMG. If he said it then it is dogma.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 09:21 AM   #1375
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Lily wrote
You can't stand to have anyone laugh at your silly posts, can you? Let me spell out what should have been obvious from my original response. Then we can weigh the relative merits of cold brussel sprouts and a live straw Studge.
You have me nailed! I HATE it when people laugh at my posts!

Irr and the Prof pointed out your latest hallucinations, but I've learned that convincing the deluded of their delusions is a near impossible task. For example, if I were to write "Lily, Cal is right: you should really see a neurologist", unfortunately your brain condition causes you to see these words: "The Catholic Church is shrinking! Therefore Transubstantiation is false, false, false!"

Anyway, you're totally pwning those hallucinations, so that's something.




Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 11:17 AM   #1376
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a


This perfectly illustrates why you've really got a hold on me. How can I totally reject someone who spends so much time being so wilfully, creatively and adorably wrong?

  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 12:30 PM   #1377
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
It's fortunate that everything you say is a lie, Mr Bolger, because if it were true that I were "wilfully, creatively and adorably wrong," we'd be a good match. (Even though you're hardly holding up your end in adorability.)
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 12:35 PM   #1378
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,832
Quote:
Lily wrote View Post
The first and most important reason for excommunication is to bring the individual face to face with a very stark choice; his way or the Church's way. Naturally, the entire Church hopes and prays for the person's repentance and reconciliaiton.

It is also a public statement by the Church that there are boundaries that one must not cross and certain acts which are gravely wrong to both the individual and to others who are harmed in some way by the crime. Not all grave sins are canonical crimes and it is only for canonical crime(s) that someone can be excommunicated. These would be things like heresy, schism, and abortion. Canon law, however, has a long list of factors that must be considered that mitigate or even remove liability for canonical crimes. That is why I said earlier that you have to try really hard to incur it.

It doesn't get you kicked out of the Church, though you lose certain rights and it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to hell, since only God is always 100% right about the state of someone's soul. But it is serious stuff and most Catholics, even weak ones, would just as soon not be excommunicated.
I can see this is serious stuff, for those who are taken in by it. The church would have to consider long & hard in the case of every sorry individual before imposing the ultimate sanction. A step never to be taken lightly.

Can you explain then how your most holy father in christ, your lord, John xxii, by divine providence chief bishop of the most holy roman church, managed to excommunicate all the people of a single country with one fell sweep of the hand, & whatever mumbo-jumbo is required. Were the thoughts and actions of every single person examined, perhaps by a magnificent flight of angles? No, I think it must have been the ominithing that performed each inquisition & relayed the guilt of every man woman & child to pope John on the big white telephone.

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 12:50 PM   #1379
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,426
Quote:
dogpet wrote View Post
...the thoughts and actions of every single person examined, perhaps by a magnificent flight of angles?
Could be.

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2008, 01:02 PM   #1380
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote View Post
It's fortunate that everything you say is a lie, Mr Bolger, because if it were true that I were "wilfully, creatively and adorably wrong," we'd be a good match. (Even though you're hardly holding up your end in adorability.)
You are pressing your luck, Brussel. You will never be a match for me, only a cute (according to Irr) wannabe. New England is littered with the broken husks of the hopefuls who failed...

Quote:
dogpet wrote View Post
Can you explain then how your most holy father in christ, your lord, John xxii, by divine providence chief bishop of the most holy roman church, managed to excommunicate all the people of a single country with one fell sweep of the hand, & whatever mumbo-jumbo is required.
Wikipedia is your friend. Use it to inform yourself as to what interdict is.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational