Posted on 09/21/2008 9:45:44 PM PDT by Coleus
ANSWER: According to the website of the Global Catholic Network the answer seems to be Palin. The site states that "once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice."
Palin was baptized Catholic according to the McCain campaign. Her abandonment of Catholicism and subsequent attendance at other churches that question Catholic orthodoxy seems to fit this definition of heresy:
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ..."
As for Biden, he's close to the edge but seems not to have gone over it. He has been warned about his behavior in failing to endorse legislation to outlaw abortion, but he has not been formally excommunicated.
Another trivia question: What other reported finalist for the Republican vice-presidential nomination also meets the above definition for self-excommunication from the Catholic Church?
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
***....her views are in line with Catholic teaching on EVERY critical subject.***
What’s her stand on the Pope, nature of the elements, the Apocrypha, etc...
Small potatoes! She subscribes to the arch-heresy: creationism! The wrath of G-d literally boils against these arrogant people who read "six days" and assume it means "six days!" Who do they think they are???
In fact, I notice a lot of the stereotypes the liberals apply to Palin are applied by Catholics to American Protestants.
The Pope is a recognized head-of-state, aside from that I don't see how ANY of the other issues you bring up have ANYTHING to do with a person's qualifications to be Vice President of the United States.
“once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.”
Specifically, I'm interested in the wording, “...or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff...”
I fully understand that the words, “bishop,” “elder,” and “overseer” are synonymous. If this is what is used to describe the Pope, that would be very reasonable to me. But please find your own supporting references to what, in my understanding, should only be “Christ.”
There's a whiff of hypocrisy in that passage.
You can do better than that. I'm letting you use your own Bible translation.
Nope.
Aren't his declarations supposed to be valid when he speaks on behalf of God?
That's not an unfair way to put it.
We know he is speaking on behalf of God if it makes sense against the words of God in the Bible, otherwise, how are we to know?
Christ put Him in charge as His Vicar, the visible head of the Church.
You can do better than that.
No need to.
I'm letting you use your own Bible translation.
How generous of you.
Your line of reasoning leaves one to believe the higher-ups in the Catholic church can just make things up, and then tell their parishioners that, “even though the Bible doesn't say anything like this, ‘trust me.’”
Maybe this is how many of the abuses of the US Catholic church came to be and why there are so many lawsuits. After all, their behavior wasn't “right” by the Bible, but we know that Catholics must not really take the Bible as their reference point.
Even though the Bible doesn't say anything like sola scriptura, trust me. --Rev. Billy-bob.
Why don't you show me where those abuses were claimed to be a teaching of the Catholic Church? Who claimed they were right?
Petronski, I never realized you were such the heretic!
None of that is true. It's not that I can't. It's that I haven't.
and you refute, such that anyone trying to take concepts back to the Bible is wrong?
Nope, not true either.
I'm trying to ascertain why you claim it MUST be sourced solely by Scripture. It's an odd demand, since that demand cannot be sourced solely by Scripture.
The act of heresy does not, I think, even fit her family. The Roman Church no longer holds fast on the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church, and unless the Heaths consciously attempted and succeeded to persuade other of the Faithful to join them they are not guilty of heresy.
Representative Pelosi might be closer to that heretical line as she proffers a belief clearly in opposition to the Roman Church and by her words and actions offered it as a road other Catholics could follow in good conscious. That to me is far closer to hersy than a person taking leave of a belief for another.
Heard this before. The fact that Biden and other pro infanticide politicians still receive communion is a much bigger scandal than Palin’s parents moving to Alaska and joining a non Catholic church.
You never addressed my example provided - whereby a higher authority (President, in my example) entrusts some level of authority in a lower subordinate (Lieutenant). Someone subject to the authority of the Lieutenant is also subject to the authority of the President - however, does that necessitate the Lieutenant and the President be equals?
Now you are changing your charge, and requiring US to defend against something else before you "apologize?"
We have already shown by many examples, which you appear to have deemed unworthy of notice, that submission to someone is not the same as making that person equivalent to Christ. So even when you show that we require some kind of submission to the Pope, you have not proved the ridiculous charge that we believe the Pope to be equivalent to Christ. So whatever YOU may require before YOU apologize (and who is asking you to apologize? Not me) for your words, what reason requires has been satisfied.
Second, you require that we "prove" a stand from Scripture, which is to say, you set up a standard held by some as though it were a universal standard and require us to prove our innocence from a ridiculous charge when reason unaided suffices to refute your charge without reference to Scripture. Even if it were unscriptural to give some particular submission to the Pope, that would not touch on whether we think or believe the Pope is equivalent to Christ.
(Third, FYI the Pope is a bishop. I'm not sure what you are saying about bishops generally, but the Pope is the bishop of the diocese of Rome.)
You have made a charge that we believe the Pope to be equivalent to Christ. Now you are kind of shifting the charge, a little here and a little there. I am not interested in that. You made the charge, you explain it and show it, or give it up. Then if you want to change the subject and get in some digs about the Church, go right ahead. But first, know this. I am a Catholic in good standing, a convert, and I do not believe the Pope to be equivalent to Christ. So your charge is refuted by reason and by example.
If you want to redefine "equivalent" or to say something like "of course, I meant 'equivalent' in some particular way(s)" go right ahead. But that's not your original charge.
Your original charge is at the very best incredibly poorly framed and, as it is framed, ridiculous on its face, and has been shown to be false. By disagreeing with it, I did not pledge myself to argue with or even respond to every subsequent rephrasing, modification, or recasting of the original charge or to every new charge you make.
Making an outrageous and unfounded charge does not provide the moral authority to demand that those who disagree with you dance to your tune.
Well I don't know where his "line of reasoning leaves" anyone. The real deal, though, is that we trust God. And that means we trust Him to keep what we think are His Promises to His Church. Yes, without God's care, without His "covenant loyalty" the Church could, theoretically go over the cliff. But we believe that God will protect His faithful people by keeping true the teaching of the Church and by ptoecting her from error in Her teaching.
From out here in Catholic land it sometimes seems as if some Protestants don't trust God, and so they hold Him accountable to the Bible. It's as if they were to say, "I have it here in writing Lord; you have to stick to the deal."
Despite the scandals and other challenges to our confidence in God's care, we still believe that He cares for us and preserves the Church from error. We trust God.
*****************
Well said!
I've already mentioned the place in which I know Scripture only states that Christ should be that authority, not an Apostle, bishop, elder, overseer, etc. That is the problem area. However, you state that special documents, which you do not give in any reference, must have the supporting material for your position. I've looked at the few New Testament chapters mentioned, and they, in no way, describe something that supports the problem area mentioned in the article from Coleus.
It appears you don't have much of a case at this point, do you?
As a result, when people make up stuff and say there is no place it can be found, Protestants so have a problem with that.
You, and any rational person who believe in Christ, should, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.