Swizz & lil Stevie,

How come you two been haven’t been yapping about AB Hermann wanting to clean up that hot steamy pile that Burke left on the table by filing a suit in civil court of all places.
Three years in canon law didn’t beat us so now the AD wants to go through civil court??
I guess paying off all those judgments is catching up with someone
(Remember Dittmer Mo?)

Steve, from an earlier blog on this topic, various individuals who I presume to be Roman Catholic have made statements from classic catholic theology like:

“Those who violate Canon law in the St. Stanislaus situation are risking their immortal souls”

“I wonder when some of these lost souls will return to the One True Church.”

These statements are both expositions of classic R.C. theology, and certainly give credence to the idea that as far as Catholics are concerned (or at least this sub-group who think Burke was the greatest thing since sliced bread) that anyone who does not subscribe to rigid Catholicism is damned.

I’d like to point out that demands for rigid obedience to Canon Law led directly to the Reformation 500 years or so ago. A careful study of the Bible would suggest that Canon law is NOT the way to salvation. Canon Law is Man’s invention to attempt to codify into law the mystery of Grace. It was pointed out by the Apostle Paul that the Law Kills, but the Spirit gives Life. (I Cor 3:6)

hs,

Catholic leaders simply do not decree that someone is damned to Hell. Period.

For a Catholic leader to say that someone would appear to be at risk of such, because of their actions and the leaders’ interpretation of divine revelation, to me that’s a different thing completely. Had the Catholic leader said, “That’s it… you’re damned to Hell,” then to me that’s something different altogether. We’re not in the damning to Hell business.

As far as your other anonymous citation, I see “lost souls” as simply a figure of speech. But maybe that’s a matter of interpretation, too.

Sto Lat, you truly are a class act to debate. You are so engaging and courteous, so polished and astute, so factual and articulate.

Seriously now, your steadfastness in continuing the vitriolic criticism of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church is amazing. You have been blustering for so many months now and appear to still be going strong, so I wonder if you will ever get to the point where you find it tiresome. Perhaps you would be better served to apply such steadfastness to other more positive pursuits instead of continuing to spew poison about Holy Mother Church. You are so full of animosity. Aren’t you tired of it yet? Why not go do something to soothe your soul a bit, something like maybe say a rosary or catch a late Mass for the Feast of the Assumption (at St. Agatha’s)? Whatever you choose to do or not do, I myself am out of here for now. Dona Nobis Pacem.

“We’re not in the damning to Hell business.”

Right from the KJV

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.

But maybe that is acceptable to some followers and maybe it’s not, who am I to say. Now, I sure hope that with your little cartoon you are not suggesting that I myself am simply part of the flock.

Jimmy,

I hate to break this to you, but look at your Bible again. You’ve actually just quoted Jesus Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, not just any old church leader…. Don’t you think there’s a difference?

The full context, from the NAB translation:
14
(But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised.
15
He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.
16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17
These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.
18
They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19
So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.

Steve: here is the important distinction:

Scripture is one thing. Canon Law, however, is NOT scripture. It is an human interpretation OF scripture, so it is open to discussion, debate, and change. The problem with rigid fundamentalism is that it always leads to the development of rules, and the rigid application of rules leaves out one fundamental factor: That GOD may not follow the rules. GOD follows HIS own rules….and they are only partially understandable to us. Paul writes in 1 Cor 13 about seeing in the mirror dimly…which is a pretty good explication of this mystery.

Jesus founded no church and expounded on only two laws that dated back to Moses. He left only one instruction to us: Make disciples and Baptize them.

hs,

If you believe that Jesus founded no Church and that he left only one instruction, then you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, I’m afraid.

I’d be curious what you make of, “You are Peter, and on this rock I build my church.”

Steve: how about this: The rock was the confession (thou art the Christ), and upon THAT rock (the confession that Jesus was Messiah) would the church be built.

Bottom line: The confession of faith is what makes a person a believer. Nothing else is required. All the rest is meaningless.

I’m on the verge of wandering off into a lengthy discussion of the differences between Catholic and Reformed theology. Suffice it to say that I’ll agree to disagree with you. Just consider that Jesus had pretty harsh things to say to the church lawyers and fundamentalists of His day. I wonder what He would say to both the lawyers like Burke and the fundamentalists like Dobson, Falwell, and the rest.