C
CentralFLJames
Guest
You don’t have to take your leave - just try to stay focused on the topic. I know its hard but too many good OPs get suddenly closed by moderators if we drift of topic.
James
- Status
James
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Let us see
Logic comes in levels. The presumption is you are on a higher level. But that is a presumption
And there you go so long to the "I am most decidedly not reinterpreting the Magisterium’s teachings."
Ah the “youing” is back. Jesus simply did not admonish the girl he admonished the crowd who wanted to follow the teaching (!) to stone. A lesson which has clearly gone unlearned. Jesus guided the woman and replaced the LAW the new law is - Treat you brother as yourself.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
You’ve just unabashedly made that up. Pure fiction.
S
SonofMonica
Guest
When Christ was asked what the greatest commandment was, he responded:
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” He also stated the second greatest commandment was “love your neighbor as yourself.”
But were these new commandments? Absolutely not. The first is contained in Deuteronomy 6:5. The second in Leviticus 19:18. Christ was not issuing new commandments to replace the ten commandments or any other law. He simply answered the question as asked.
In fact, Christ stated that on those two commandments “hang all the law and the prophets.” If he was doing away with them, why would they need to hang on these two commandments?
The reality is, Christ said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Christ did not come to do away with the law, in fact he said in the very next verse, verse 18 that “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
In the same vein, Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. When we say in the Creed that Christ rose from the dead “in fulfillment of the scriptures” we are talking about the fact that the Old Testament scriptures foretold of his death and resurrection and we believe it actually happened.
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” He also stated the second greatest commandment was “love your neighbor as yourself.”
But were these new commandments? Absolutely not. The first is contained in Deuteronomy 6:5. The second in Leviticus 19:18. Christ was not issuing new commandments to replace the ten commandments or any other law. He simply answered the question as asked.
In fact, Christ stated that on those two commandments “hang all the law and the prophets.” If he was doing away with them, why would they need to hang on these two commandments?
The reality is, Christ said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Christ did not come to do away with the law, in fact he said in the very next verse, verse 18 that “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
In the same vein, Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. When we say in the Creed that Christ rose from the dead “in fulfillment of the scriptures” we are talking about the fact that the Old Testament scriptures foretold of his death and resurrection and we believe it actually happened.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
These posts seem rather silly. Do you see a difference in “Treat you brother as yourself” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” if so maybe you can explain it.
So what is the “law” today? Well if you read Leviticus you would clearly see the Catholic Church does not follow all those laws. The church clearly acknowledges the 10 commandments however the church also acknowledges the two commandments which go much, much, much, further. For example look at alienation and segregation encouraged in Leviticus but clearly counter to actions of love, so the two are mightier. Now what does the church teach alienation and segregation are good, bad, or outside the law?
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Silly? I never said that you or I have to observe Jewish purity codes. The point is, Jesus did not come to Earth to abolish the law–to do away with it. Rather, he came to fulfill it. That is to say, he came to actually accomplish the law. I’m not saying what commandments from the Old Testament do or do not apply to you and I. But the Church requires more of us than simply love each other. Sure, the rest hangs on that, but it’s more than that. So, my post was silly? No, it’s almost straight out of the Catechism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
D
Don_Schneider
Guest
Dear Texas,
Well, I don’t think one has to be another Aristotle or Descartes to comprehend that if a religious authority teaches that an activity is murder to reasonably assume that that religious authority would shun those advocating making such available with impunity.
I despise dogs.
I want nothing to do with them and wish they didn’t exist.
Therefore, I shall become a dog breeder.
As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge so succinctly put it: “I shall retire to Bedlam!”
Well, I don’t think one has to be another Aristotle or Descartes to comprehend that if a religious authority teaches that an activity is murder to reasonably assume that that religious authority would shun those advocating making such available with impunity.
I despise dogs.
I want nothing to do with them and wish they didn’t exist.
Therefore, I shall become a dog breeder.
As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge so succinctly put it: “I shall retire to Bedlam!”
J
JRKH
Guest
Let us not get too far afield here in this discussion.
There are only a fiew Pertinant facts.
If you say you are Catholic then BE Catholic.
If you cannot adhere to the Church’s teachings then stop saying you are Catholic.
Peace
James
There are only a fiew Pertinant facts.
- The persons of concern here claim to be Practicing Catholics.
- If anyone wishes to know what Catholics Believe, we have available a Catachism which spells out the beliefs of the Catholic Church,
- That Catachsim clearly and unequivicably declares abortion wrong.
- The persons of concern are well aware of this fact.
- If these persons were to freely leave the church could hold whatever position they wished and the Church would have no say in the matter.
- The persons of concern, since they are in open denial of this ancient and clear teaching of the Church, should not be surprised if the Church were to impose strict and public sanctions agianst these people - even to the point of formal excommunication.
- I say formal above, because these persons are already in a state of schism. or excommunication by simply holding such beliefs in opposition to the Church.
If you say you are Catholic then BE Catholic.
If you cannot adhere to the Church’s teachings then stop saying you are Catholic.
Peace
James
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I think this is the rub between us. Again if you read Leviticus you will find many laws. Now note the Church uses the term “commandments” though not exclusive it is general used to restrict the term law to the Ten Commandments as received by Moses however even these commandments are always written the same. Comparing that to the two commands the two call for much more, as they are not restricted to specifics as stealing, lying, respect, etc. The two commandments prevent the dismissal of precepts; in fact the second command is much more of a precept itself that is why it is so far reaching. It is much harder to live the second commandment from Jesus than all other (except faith). Yet in this thread the precepts and the second commandment are being dismissed and redefined to apply only to some not to all. So the thread is basically ask us to act as the Jews in the catechism!
C
chain
Guest
just a minor post back to the topic at hand. I understand there is a large difference between an individual who commits a sin, and an individual who teaches others to commit a sin.
Non-public individuals who disagree with the church risk their souls. But that is their freedom. But public individuals who preach from their elected positions false teachings - who through their actions lead other souls away from God, theirs is a different, and far worse sin.
Homosexuals have a heavy cross to bear - but teaching it is not a sin to endulge in homosexual behavior is a heresy. As much as teaching masturbation is ok, that premarital sex is ok, that unlawful marriages are ok. There is much grace in carrying a heavy cross…
Non-public individuals who disagree with the church risk their souls. But that is their freedom. But public individuals who preach from their elected positions false teachings - who through their actions lead other souls away from God, theirs is a different, and far worse sin.
Homosexuals have a heavy cross to bear - but teaching it is not a sin to endulge in homosexual behavior is a heresy. As much as teaching masturbation is ok, that premarital sex is ok, that unlawful marriages are ok. There is much grace in carrying a heavy cross…
A
AndyF
Guest
James:
In that category of offenders are those in the congregation who are or should know they have severed their friendship with God and are in mortal sin, but who are not now the focus of attention and will never be because the offense wasn’t made public. I just can’t see how you can designate a person accurately.
I also read into Mat18 discretion and more importantly closure. The passage conveys haste. It may be that 3 persons knew through direct experience and knowledge, the remainder of the parish by presumption and slander. [It is also slander to speak of others even if it is true if the intent did not foresee a *good as a result].
Unless the designated priest received the information other than through the confessional it is forbidden to act on the information.
Mat18 is good, but 2 Cor 2,5 describes the attitude and the aim.
Andy
Just some points.
In that category of offenders are those in the congregation who are or should know they have severed their friendship with God and are in mortal sin, but who are not now the focus of attention and will never be because the offense wasn’t made public. I just can’t see how you can designate a person accurately.
I also read into Mat18 discretion and more importantly closure. The passage conveys haste. It may be that 3 persons knew through direct experience and knowledge, the remainder of the parish by presumption and slander. [It is also slander to speak of others even if it is true if the intent did not foresee a *good as a result].
Unless the designated priest received the information other than through the confessional it is forbidden to act on the information.
Mat18 is good, but 2 Cor 2,5 describes the attitude and the aim.
Andy
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
So-how public is public? Is this only for national politicians or does it extend to local folks?
What if a Church volunteer, well known in the parish, is reported to the Pastor for saying things contrary to Church teaching? What if they’re spotted buying ABC or they tell others that they use it and it’s ok?
What if a Church volunteer, well known in the parish, is reported to the Pastor for saying things contrary to Church teaching? What if they’re spotted buying ABC or they tell others that they use it and it’s ok?
J
JRKH
Guest
One does not automatically jump into the “toss 'em out mode”. Any person, public or private needs to have the chance to explain their position and then to have the Church’s teachings explained to them. Time should be provided for reflection and discussion.
However there will come a time when it becomes clear that a person is simply not going to recant their error and at that point sanctions need to be imposed for the Good of thei soul and for the good of the community.
Peace
James
D
Don_Schneider
Guest
Once again, Grace, I simply cannot believe that you or any other Catholic could possibly make such a statement if you truly accepted the Church’s teaching on life. What other issue could possibly equate in seriousness and immediate concern to the judicial murder of 80 million human beings in the U.S. alone since Roe?
If you or anyone is not willing to accept the Church’s teaching, then why would you or anyone want to belong to Her? It is totally illogical. What possible eternal benefit do you feel you will derive from it?
The fact that the Church leadership refuses to take seriously their own teachings is the most grievous sin in the history of the Church. Moreover, many within the Church’s prelature actually seem aggrieved that any of the faithful would “presume” to take *them *seriously.
D
Don_Schneider
Guest
Dear James,
Your logic is succinct and completely accurate. Alas, that will matter little to the “people of concern" here.
Just once, I would like to hear or see someone say or write:
“Yes, I admit it. I am totally hypocritical and don’t deny it. My views make absolutely no sense; no more so than if I joined a society of vegetarians only to feast on steak each and every night. It is simply some neurotic fear of death that compels me to maintain the pretense of actually being Catholic.”
At least such an individual would be honest.
Your logic is succinct and completely accurate. Alas, that will matter little to the “people of concern" here.
Just once, I would like to hear or see someone say or write:
“Yes, I admit it. I am totally hypocritical and don’t deny it. My views make absolutely no sense; no more so than if I joined a society of vegetarians only to feast on steak each and every night. It is simply some neurotic fear of death that compels me to maintain the pretense of actually being Catholic.”
At least such an individual would be honest.
C
Christopher68
Guest
54% of Catholics voted for Obama instead of McCain. I am certain there were a multitude of reasons for this, other than ‘life’ issues. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that half of those Catholics who voted for Obama would consider themselves ‘pro choice’ even if they themselves would always choose life. For the hardliners here - are you proposing that the Church expel 27% of it’s attendees? How would the Church be able to handle a 27% drop in collections?
J
JRKH
Guest
Lets first deal with the last. The Church is not about collections, it is about truth and the salvation of souls. I do not pretend that financial issue do not weigh on the clergy, but so long as they allow it to interfere with truth and sound teaching they play into the hands of evil.
As to those who voted for Obama,
You are right. There were many reasons and I am sure most of them dealt with finances reather than life issues. The fact of the matter is that the President, regardless of his views cannot pass one single piece of legislation, whether pro-or anti- life. It is up to Congress to do that.
As to those persons who hold opinions and beliefs contrary to Church teaching,
The Church needs to begin somewhere. She needs to start with those with the largest voice. Those in the public eye whether in Government, Entertainment or Pulpit, who openly advocate posiions that are directly contrary to Church teachings.
This sends a message to your “27%” that holding such views are not simply "differing opinions, but are really and fruly detrimental to ones soul.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Peace
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Before we go into excommunication we need to get the priests to start teaching about hell again and fear of God. Right now we are still in the love-n-lollipops theology of the 60’s in what is being taught at the pulpit. All we hear is “God is love”. The last time I heard a real earth shattering “hell and damnation” sermon was back around 1968 or so. He shook that parish up and scared too many out of their comfor zones. But since he was an effective speaker that particular associate priest was shipped out in less than 6 months and reassigned.
No one has a fear of eternal damnation anymore. We have to start teaching some of the saints revelations about hell and God’s justice so that people actually start to get out of their false sense of security and actually care if they are excommunicated. A liberal mind that has no respect for ecclesial authority or has his own ideas about God will laugh at a threat of excommunication and think or say “you can’t excommunicate me - I choose to stay - I excommunicate you for teaching that God could ever send anyone to hell”.
That’s the childish attitude that is out there right now. These people “don’t get it” and are living in a fantasy world that everyone gets to heaven as long as one tries to be nice and believes that there is a God. The Protestant disease has spread to inside the Catholic Church.
James
No one has a fear of eternal damnation anymore. We have to start teaching some of the saints revelations about hell and God’s justice so that people actually start to get out of their false sense of security and actually care if they are excommunicated. A liberal mind that has no respect for ecclesial authority or has his own ideas about God will laugh at a threat of excommunication and think or say “you can’t excommunicate me - I choose to stay - I excommunicate you for teaching that God could ever send anyone to hell”.
That’s the childish attitude that is out there right now. These people “don’t get it” and are living in a fantasy world that everyone gets to heaven as long as one tries to be nice and believes that there is a God. The Protestant disease has spread to inside the Catholic Church.
James
C
Christopher68
Guest
Thank you for your response. I understand your points.
On a related issue, I read the speech that Fr. Jenkins gave at Notre Dame during the Obama visit controversy. In his speech, he made the following comments:
“When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be pursuasive to others - or do we condemn others for not seeing the truth that we see? The first approach can lead to healing, the second to hostility.”
Fr. Jenkins comments are also an appropriate response to the original post of this thread.
And from a practical standpoint, there is a vast difference between ‘pursuading’ someone as opposed to ‘coercing’ them. The ‘hardline’ approach is the wrong one, in my opinion.
M
mkingdomlvr
Guest
I agree-we win no converts with anger and hostility.
- Status