Posted on 04/15/2015 1:38:52 PM PDT by NYer
Could you cite the Canon law that states that sodomites are ex-communicated?
So we get back to the teaching that there is no obedience outside the Catholic Church, which makes laxity contingent on rebellion.
The farther that protestantism has moved from the Catholic Church the more it has become the church of Que Sera Sera.
Protestants prove the Goldie Locks version of church, in order to avoid the Church. You know the story, just pick a bowl and consume, and your self-qualified to go preach the virtues of whatever flavor was in your bowl, in some laughable attempt to bring down what Christ Jesus built and protestants rejected. \0/ just go figure?
Que Sera Sera.
Oh, so sodomites do NOT automatically ex-communicate themselves.
You need to tell your fellow Catholics, with whom you are supposed to be in unity under the teaching authority of the Catholic church.
Then perhaps you could also answer the question as to WHY they haven’t been ex-communicated by the church. Doesn’t it have the ....um.... backbone to do it any more?
Why does it seem that there is always the underlying assumption that someone is not Catholic because they have unanswered questions that a priest could answer and if they were answered, they’d come back to the church?
Not a chance.
I don’t have any unanswered questions about it. I know all I need to know.
And it wasn’t because of unanswered questions that I left in the first place or the second place.
Third or fourth?
Nope. I left it twice, the second time with eyes wide open thanks to the illumination from the Holy Spirit to the Scripture I was reading.
They put their faith in men and human nature is such that if others follow them they feel they are right. They always send us to something or someone other than scripture.
Faith groups which practice closed communion are guided by Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth.
I don’t use the term “Roman Catholic” (it is a holdover from WASP hostility - we are Latin Rite Catholics), but if the Orthodox referred to their Churches as “Orthodox Catholic Churches” then I would include them under “Catholic”. They don’t, so I don’t.
Without high-jacking the thread, let me say that this explanation is certainly plausible. Others have pointed out that the other Gospel accounts can be viewed in a way to reconcile them to Luke's account. This is an apparent contradiction whose resolution isn't universally accepted. I think that there is enough uncertainty that dogmatism about Judas' presence or absence should be avoided.
It has no effect on my view of the Lord's Supper. There will be people who will improperly take the Lord's Supper and who will be punished for doing so as Paul instructed in 1 Corinthians 11. It is possible that Judas was the first.
I like that post a lot. It sounds like you and I have traveled similar paths.
[1 John 5:16] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
[17] All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
My quotation isn't to agree with any particular interpretation of what a "sin unto death" and "a sin not unto death" are. I'm just noticing that unless there's considerable error in the Bibles that most Christians use, the Bible makes a distinction between the two, even though I've never seen a scriptural delineation of which sins fall in which category. Accordingly, Scripture itself seems to disprove the insistence that all sin is sin without any sort of distinction soever: "all unrighteousness is sin," but not all sin is the same, or else the surrounding words wouldn't make sense. (I don't view James 2:10-11 and similar passages as a contradiction, and for deeper reasons than some a priori belief that Scripture contains no contradictions.)
Correctamundo MM. I got all my questions answered, so I hit the fix outbound (a little air traffic control lingo there) 😀😄😇 I found out all I needed to know as well. It's not difficult to figure out.
In debate you hold what is called the positive or the affirmative position. The "Burden of Proof" is on you. Can you show from Canon Law that sodomites are automatically excommunicated. Here is a link to the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Code of Canon Law
Anxiously awaiting your reply.
Yes, but not necessarily contrary to 1Cor. 11, in which the disunity was not ignoring others by eating independently, so that some were full and others satiated, and were thus shaming them that have not,.
And were thus effectually not recognizing/discerning others as being members of the body of Christ for whom Christ died, and whose death got the body is what they were sppsd to be mindful of and showing by taking part in the Lord's communual meal.
Thus the remedy was not a lesson on transubstantiation, but to eat at home if hungry so as to not act out of real hunger, and to tarry for one another. As detailed here more.
If known believers walking in fellowship with Christ and brethren was excluded from the Lord's table then it would be wrong, but if we do not know whether someone is a believer or not, and as it would be wrong to have fellowship with the impenitent disobedient or devils (remember Akin, and Judas), then unless such persons guilt would be upon their own heads, then leadership would be right in restricting it to those whose testimony is known.
But i think to be consistent, if we are to exclude all but those of the local body from the Table of the Lord then we could also exclude members with having any fellowship with anyone from outside, based upon the same principal of separation and precepts commanding it. (1Cor. 6:14-18)
And to me this unreasonable, and upon examination i would say that unless we know a one is an impenitent disobedient soul, and who has not been restored to fellowship with the body he was part of, then we are to allow all to take part in the Lord's table, after teaching them of what i basically said on 1Cor. 11, and warning them one could die for being a hypocrite while presuming to show the Lord's death by how they treat His body.
That would be my position as well. I believe that there are times when someone should be turned away from the Table - public, unrepented sin. Partakers should be warned about the consequences of wrongly taking but ultimately, Paul does call for a man "to examine himself."
While it is clear that Paul tells us of potential serious consequences for improperly taking, I don't believe that the warnings should keep a qualified person away from the Table to be on the safe side. I have a hard time believing that God would punish someone who improperly partook due to an honest mistake. In my mind that seems inconsistent with a Sacrament of grace.
28 posted on 4/15/2015 6:12:33 PM by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Actually this was originally posted by a catholic.
I guess chess with pigeons is the only competition some can compete with and have a chance.
In debate you hold what is called the positive or the affirmative position.
Not sure what position your holding now, but it's not a pretty one.
So where in Scripture is a list of the sins that lead to death and the ones that don’t?
Where did the Catholic church get its list of *mortal* and *venial* sin?
You were aware, weren’t you, that the penalty for ALL sin is death?
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.