I am loosely referring to conservative RCs, which typically disown the liberals Rome treats as members. I will change the abbreviation to CRCs
I am and was not a fan of Kennedy’ politics but most of the excommunicable offenses are directed at Bishops and Priests.
Then that would further render as spurious the relegation of liberal RCs laity as being self excoms.
The Canon clearly states ‘Procured an abortion” is that the same thing as “supports liberal judges who promote abortion rights”
Obviously, if you legalize the killing of Jews then you are culpable for their deaths.
Did he apostate from the faith, i.e. leave the Church
According to the CRCs, yes, but in reality no, he left a former manifestation of the Roman institution, but not the modern one.
did he cause Catholics to leave the Church [formal schism].
Likewise no, because you can be a Teddy K Catholic and be a member.
Supporting abortion rights is sinful but is it a latae sententaie offense?
Yes, according to the CRCs, obviously Rome does not treat them as such. Even quite public ones.
There are lots of things that are sinful that don’t incur automatic excommunication. Lust, anger, greed, gossip, not going to Mass on Sunday.
If impenitent it may be considered such.
Have we ever seen a lay Catholic excommunicated back in those days.
Your argument is not with me, but the CRCs who disallow liberals as really being members, despite how their church treats them.
So I will err on the side of Mercy and presume that Teddy did in fact make a good Sacrament of COnfession before he died, with a good Act of Contrition
That mercy will not help him, and is erring by making a great presumption, as the evidence only says points to impenitence.
and that he received the Annointing of the Sick and Viaticum [His Last Eucharist] and that God’s Grace found away to rescue Ole Teddy from himself,
That would not save him anyway. The Annointing of the Sick in Scripture (Ja. 5) was for healing, nor as a precursor of death, and done by elders, not priests , which elders are never called, except as part of the general priesthood of all believers.
Nor was anyone ever born again and saved by taking part in the Lord's supper, but by contrite repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save him as a damned+destitute sinner, by the sinless shed blood of Christ.
I would conjecture Ole Teddy had or is still having a stop over in Purgatory!!! before he can enjoy the full Beatific Vision.
That is more error, as all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer's postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). And the postmortem only suffering actually taught for believers is that of 1 Cor. 3, the suffering of loss of rewards (and the Lord's grievous disapproval) due to the nature of the material by which they built the church. But which a soul is saved in spite of, not because of. And yet which does not occur until the Lord's return. See more here
Moreover, while God does chastise believers as needed for sins, and works to perfect saints, this whole work is not done by postmortem suffering, or even just by suffering, but by facing the afflictions and temptation of this life. Thus the Lord Himself came down from Heaven to take on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and be made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10), that of being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Hebrews 4:15) “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).
I have posted what I posted, take your polemics somewhere else. Not interested in it.
I am loosely referring to conservative RCs, which typically disown the liberals Rome treats as members. I will change the abbreviation to CRCs
I am and was not a fan of Kennedy’ politics but most of the excommunicable offenses are directed at Bishops and Priests.
Then that would further render as spurious the relegation of liberal RCs laity as being self excoms.
Not sure what you are talking about. Nothing spurious at all. There are clear offenses which result in excommunication according to Catholic Canon law. I cited them in an earlier thread. In addition, mortal sin would obviously separate one from the Church and Christ as well.
The Canon clearly states ‘Procured an abortion” is that the same thing as “supports liberal judges who promote abortion rights”
Obviously, if you legalize the killing of Jews then you are culpable for their deaths.
First off, I don’t think Kennedy legalized anything. That was done by 9 Supreme Court Justices in 1973, most of which at the time were not Catholic by a 7 - 2 vote. If you are going to make that argument, then George Bush is responsible for thousands of deaths for the Iraq War as Sadamm Husein did not attack the US. It was not a legitimate war, the same can be said for Vietnam. Neither country attacked the United States.
Did he apostate from the faith, i.e. leave the Church
According to the CRCs, yes, but in reality no, he left a former manifestation of the Roman institution, but not the modern one.
Babble. Their is one Catholic Church in communion with Rome, period. Is anyone claiming Kennedy was a saint. No.
did he cause Catholics to leave the Church [formal schism].
Likewise no, because you can be a Teddy K Catholic and be a member.
The Catholic Church is not a political club, which apparently you associate Christianity with some political ideology. That is heretical nonsense. I disagreed with Kennedy’s politics, but I have no right to say he is not a Catholic. He was not a good one, no doubt, but that is not for me to say.
Supporting abortion rights is sinful but is it a latae sententaie offense?
Yes, according to the CRCs, obviously Rome does not treat them as such. Even quite public ones.
Rome doesn’t publicly excommunicate Adulterers or people who are in irregular marriages. Excommunications are not used against laity, and that has been the case throughout history. Bishops and Priests, yes.
There are lots of things that are sinful that don’t incur automatic excommunication. Lust, anger, greed, gossip, not going to Mass on Sunday.
If impenitent it may be considered such. Agree, if someone sins seriously, they by there actions have excommunicated themselves, but there is not formal Church process that publicly says you are excommunicated.
Have we ever seen a lay Catholic excommunicated back in those days.
Your argument is not with me, but the CRCs who disallow liberals as really being members, despite how their church treats them.
Well I am not arguing with anyone. I have only presented what excommunication is and what it is not.
So I will err on the side of Mercy and presume that Teddy did in fact make a good Sacrament of COnfession before he died, with a good Act of Contrition
That mercy will not help him, and is erring by making a great presumption, as the evidence only says points to impenitence.
Ok, how do you know God’s Mercy will not help him. You are making some pretty strong claims and are playing God. I have no reason to suspect that Cardinal O’Malley was not aware [privately] that Kennedy did repent of his sins before he died otherwise there would have been no Funeral Liturgy. To presume the opposite is to defame Cardinal O’Malley’s character [Bear false witness] without any such evidence. So, I refuse to go down that route and play God.
and that he received the Annointing of the Sick and Viaticum [His Last Eucharist] and that God’s Grace found away to rescue Ole Teddy from himself,
That would not save him anyway. The Annointing of the Sick in Scripture (Ja. 5) was for healing, nor as a precursor of death, and done by elders, not priests , which elders are never called, except as part of the general priesthood of all believers.
Nor was anyone ever born again and saved by taking part in the Lord’s supper, but by contrite repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save him as a damned+destitute sinner, by the sinless shed blood of Christ.
This is now your Theological opinion and are in obvious conflict with Catholic Doctrine. I reject your theological positions on this matter, and you reject mine. The constant Theological writings of the Fathers support the Catholic view against yours. The list is exhaustive so you stick to your individualistic view
I would conjecture Ole Teddy had or is still having a stop over in Purgatory!!! before he can enjoy the full Beatific Vision.
That is more error, as all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer’s postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). And the postmortem only suffering actually taught for believers is that of 1 Cor. 3, the suffering of loss of rewards (and the Lord’s grievous disapproval) due to the nature of the material by which they built the church. But which a soul is saved in spite of, not because of. And yet which does not occur until the Lord’s return. See more here
Moreover, while God does chastise believers as needed for sins, and works to perfect saints, this whole work is not done by postmortem suffering, or even just by suffering, but by facing the afflictions and temptation of this life. Thus the Lord Himself came down from Heaven to take on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and be made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10), that of being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Hebrews 4:15) “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).
Scriptural quotes put together by you to support and erroneous theology. Has absolutely nothing to do with the questions at hand.