Wrong!
I looked at your link and the list things claimed Catholic don't have to agree upon. Those who recognize the Pope as Holy See are to follow dogmatic teaching if they are aware of what they are.There are only a few issues that need to be worked out with our Eastern Orthodox brethren( which both sides can give a little), but we are closer that ever because the love the EO's have for Pope Benedict XVI
Those who knowingly don't believe Church dogma have excommunicated themselves "latae sententiae"
Pelosi, Coumo in NY, and others fall into this category
Knowing this is important to those who do know what the Church teaches and it becomes a sin to those who do not try and correct those walking in error
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which is 'wide' (latae) or widely applied; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272) and does not require the future particular judgment of a case by competent authority.
Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offenses which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of ANY truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium.
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith
FWIW,dear friend,It's easy to spot cunning and manipulative people because they have to write extremely long posts and post many links to try and explain themselves.It's not impressive or intellectually and spiritually sound either!
That said, mainstream protestantism has a good amount in common with Catholicism because it's impossible to remain a Christian and dismiss Catholic teaching which was borrowed from Catholic Theology in mainstream protestantism.
I wish you a blessed evening!
Wrong! Those who recognize the Pope as Holy See are to follow dogmatic teaching if they are aware of what they are. There are only a few issues that need to be worked out with our Eastern Orthodox brethren..Those who knowingly don't believe Church dogma have excommunicated themselves "latae sententiae.."
Apostasy, heresy, and schism are all offenses which incur a sentence of excommunication automatically. Heresy is the obstinate denial of ANY truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium.
Rather than being wrong, the reality behind what you describe illustrates this illusion. The fact is that the basis for unity is the issue, and under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent, and you cannot restrict it to simply the Latin church, unless you want to compare it to one SS-type church.
• The “few issues” which separates you from the EOs include no less than the primary doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, and his claims to universal power, based upon your respective interpretations of Tradition, Scripture and history under sola ecclesia. “The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
To which disagreements are added more. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html http://ww.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.asp; etc.)
In addition are the SSPX, with about 500 priests present in 31 countries, who dissent from some things in Vatican II and object strongly to some things in the catechism, seeing a contradiction between these and the previous Magisterium, but while they lack canonical status, apparently they are not presently excommunicated (and have been in talks about full communion). And the SSPX has its own Catholic subgroups, besides other traditionalists Catholic sects.
Then there are the loosely organized sedevacantists groups, which while they may be excommunicated from Rome, consider her to be the one that has moved, based upon departure from Tradition, Scripture and history.
• As for within Rome, what actual persons fall under the "latae sententiae" clause, which is not the extent of Scriptural discipline, is variously interpreted, partly due to the fact that what constitutes all that has been definitively taught by the Magisterium (requiring assent of faith) is open to some interpretation (all of Trent, or Vatican Two, what parts of Bulls, Encyclicals, etc.), as (sometimes) is their precise meaning (as in extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
Then there is what crosses the line and excommunicates one (which does not necessarily mean being "outside the grace of the Church."). There are a number of provisions in Canon law that could keep an excommunication from taking its effect, at least automatically, such as one who ignorantly or through inadvertence, or error commits an objectively schismatic act. (http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/schism_and_mort.html) .
In addition, what Rome says and effectually conveys manifests interpretation, and this can seem to be two different things. And the interpretation that Rome effectually gives is that such persons as named above are not excommunicated, because she treats them as members in life and in death. And which no less a public figure than Ted Kennedy (for one) exampled, as he manifested continued accommodation of abortion and homosexual relations without repentance, while asserting he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc.” yet (as he insolently wanted to have his cake and eat it too) he had fellowship with priests, and Masses said at his residence while living, and at the end Pope wrote, “the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord." (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/) He then was honored under Rome in death, and Rome even allowed Pres. Obama to give a eulogy (contrary to canon law i think).
And which sends a message to other “nominal” (at best) impenitent RCs , that what really matters is that they die in the arms of Rome. (It is when liberal RCs convert to conservative evangelical faith — not liberal Protestantism — that the most concern is shown, as now they are a threat to her.)
Then you have the uncertain interpretive sounds by Bishops as regards specific judgments on this issue (even if some laity presume they understand better than they),
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together.
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.
...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' (from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=289#289)
As long as Rome does not proactively excommunicate such (and looses most of her members), then there is uncertainty what Rome understand the criteria for excommunication to be, and such must still be considered members, and whom you are stuck with.
And the same judgment applies to Protestant churches who accommodate such impenitent men, but at least members can leave to be part of a more faithful fellowship of believers.
But Rome has even elected grossly immoral men as popes, and could not even formally excommunicated Hitler. (It is also debated whether (theoretically) a pope who was self-excommunicated for heresy, would still retain jurisdiction over the universal Church.)
In Scripture men such as were warned-but-impenitent practitioners of fornication or promoters thereof, which Kennedy was, or even who support indolence, etc. (besides promoters of rebellion against clear Scriptural teachings) were to be marked and at least disfellowshipped, (1Cor. 5:11; 2Thes. 3:14; Rm. 16:17; Titus 3:10) and were sometimes named as having been delivered over to the devil for chastisement. (1Tim. 3:10)
Rome rarely formally disciplines or excommunicates anyone now, being inconsistent with the past when she supported torturing suspected theological deviants, which means of dealing with such was also unScriptural.
FWIW,dear friend,It's easy to spot cunning and manipulative people because they have to write extremely long posts and post many links to try and explain themselves. It's not impressive or intellectually and spiritually sound either!
I doubt if you consider me a “dear friend” though i hope for civil dialog, but your remark is at first hypocritical, as your own church is known for writing extremely long discourses in trying and explain herself, and just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 are said to fills forty-one volumes, while she has a history of using fabrications to her own ends. And other RCs have posted such lengthy tomes or posts, which i have not seen you protest against, while other posters have expressed edification from mine (thanks be to God).
Yet, while my response to you was not lengthy, such are often warranted (and usually carefully formatted) to more fully explain and substantiate what is being argued.
That said, mainstream protestantism has a good amount in common with Catholicism because it's impossible to remain a Christian and dismiss Catholic teaching which was borrowed from Catholic Theology in mainstream protestantism.
Which apologetic is superficially considered, as the same could be said of the Jews, who are actually stated to be the stewards of Scripture, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and of whom Christ came, (Rm. 9:5) but which does not make them assured infallible.
And rather than our shared assent to certain core truths validating Rome, the reason why we hold to and contend for these while against others of Rome, is because the former are based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which the others lack as doctrines, and or are found to be in opposition, as defined by Rome.
Thus under both SE-type and SS-type churches their are disagreements and divisions, the difference being a matter of degrees, as Rome is one of many operating under the church effectively being the supreme authority (as only as she gives her affirmation does anything have authority) who claim to be the one true Church, which she can autocratically infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.