Amoris Laetitia's exception of the exception - possible explanations?

[Tantum_ergo]

If breaking the 5th does not stop bishops allowing Catholic marines to receive Communion why would you think breaking the 6th must be theologically different?

Please do not tell me the 5th is about murder not killing.
The CCC will not support you!

I suggest you have not studied the CCC sufficiently.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

IOW, servicemen and servicewomen are indeed permitted to use even lethal force in order to protect the lives of others.
That doesn’t mean they like it. Oh, and you might also reflect on the fact that said ‘marines’ as well as other service people might have talked to a priest before receiving communion, in case they had any qualms, and believe me, most do, even when they know that they are saving more lives, been forgiven IF there were anything to forgive, and thus be receiving in a state of grace.

Look, I personally happen to believe that the death penalty at least in the U.S. should not be used (because I have no right, not being a citizen anywhere else, to comment on the laws of other countries) and I also believe in ‘turning the other cheek’ as much as humanly possible, but the Church (and the Catechism) do not support your implication that ‘marines receiving communion from a bishop’ are guilty of mortal sin by 'breaking the 5th commandment, nor that this would somehow justify breaking the 6th as well.

 

[e_c]

We have to be careful to distinguish between what is valid in God’s eyes from what the Church is able to mirror juridically by the term “valid”.

How can any human authority at a later date decide now ( rather than discern) if past civil vows effected a divine marriage bond before God in some sort of arbitrary on again off again fashion as your interpretation above suggests.

Like a Tribunal surely the most that a juridical process can do is declare by evidentiary means to the best of its ability what it believes happened before God in the past.

It cannot actually dissolve a past bond if it was validly made (in most cases) nor can it form a bond back then if it was not validly made. Likewise I suggest with a Rad San.

Of course if by “validity of marriage” we are just talking purely arbitrary juridical assertions as in politics then one can say and do anything re the status of past decisions and their validity.
But I think that for most of us here we think the marriage bond is something more objective than the machinations of arbitrary court fiats re the past.

Likewise with adultery…we feel Jesus, when he was speaking of adultery of the eyes, he was talking of realities deeper than mere legalism and technicalities of merely legal validity when it comes to marriage and adultery and indeed all relationships.

I don’t even know where to start on how to go about explaining all this… You have to understand what the law is, where it comes from, what it exists for, how it applies, and sometimes also the history of its application. I just don’t have time to go into it all, nor do I have the expertise to explain every little twist and turn. I think Dr. Ed Peters has a book on the whole topic which you might find helpful, all about annulments (“straight answers to tough questions” or something like that). But in a practical way, it comes down to the existence of a “competent forum.” In what public affair - such as marriage is - can judgment come down to one’s own conscience? This would be like a man trying and sentencing himself in court… It doesn’t work.

If breaking the 5th does not stop bishops allowing Catholic marines to receive Communion why would you think breaking the 6th must be theologically different?

Please do not tell me the 5th is about murder not killing.
The CCC will not support you!

The word is “ratsach.” It has a particular meaning and usage in Hebrew. It does not mean all kinds of killing, and Tantum Ergo has shown a quote from the CCC to support this.

 

[e_c]

It is far from clear that footnote 351 of AL is in accordance.

There was a time in my life when I was a party to an “irregular marriage” by reason of my spouse not having obtained an annulment of her first marriage. No minor children were involved, but after the marriage she lost interest in pursuing an annulment of her most recent (second) marriage, a presumptively valid Catholic marriage. (Prior to this civil remarriage, I was free to marry in the Church.)

Alas, her first marriage had occurred years earlier, and it was to yours truly. This marriage had indeed been annulled prior to her second and presumptively valid Catholic marriage–it also ended in divorce. Our remarriage was thus a civil marriage and therefore an irregular one. When she persisted in her refusal to seek an annulment of her most recent (second) marriage, I eventually obtained a civil divorce so as to fully return to the Church. It was the most painful and difficult experience of my long life. This occurred in the recent past and the civil marriage is now irretrievably broken. I of course subsequently returned to the Church.

Suffice it to say, this was not a trivial matter. I am now confused, in light of the more recent AL, and am wondering why it was necessary for me to endure this most difficult and life-altering experience.

Do we see that a plethora of difficulties will arise as a result of AL?

Brother, you did something very heroic, and in fact it seems you may have been obliged to. (Yes, it is possible for us to be bound to heroism - God always provides sufficient grace to endure temptation and trial and to do His will!) The treatment of the issue by AL and its supporters denies the necessity of these heroic choices people such as yourself have made… decisions made out of a sincere, zealous, and properly formed fidelity to Jesus Christ and His saving plan for men and women in the context of family life. They look to people who have not been so resolute in their discipleship but have become lax, and they are desperately trying to find a way to make excuses for these poor souls when there are none. Instead of going to find the lost sheep to bring them back to the fold, they are claiming the fold is wherever the sheep are and that it’s just more “ideal” to have them closer together.

In other words, you are very, very correct. The difficulties have been there quite a while in many parishes and dioceses, but now it is all out in the open. Soon, something must be done…

We are not Jansenists - we ALL have the grace required to follow the Commandments, or we have the grace to dispose ourselves to receive such grace.

 

[Thomas_White]

Brother, you did something very heroic, and in fact it seems you may have been obliged to. (Yes, it is possible for us to be bound to heroism - God always provides sufficient grace to endure temptation and trial and to do His will!) The treatment of the issue by AL and its supporters denies the necessity of these heroic choices people such as yourself have made… decisions made out of a sincere, zealous, and properly formed fidelity to Jesus Christ and His saving plan for men and women in the context of family life. They look to people who have not been so resolute in their discipleship but have become lax, and they are desperately trying to find a way to make excuses for these poor souls when there are none. Instead of going to find the lost sheep to bring them back to the fold, they are claiming the fold is wherever the sheep are and that it’s just more “ideal” to have them closer together.

In other words, you are very, very correct. The difficulties have been there quite a while in many parishes and dioceses, but now it is all out in the open. Soon, something must be done…

We are not Jansenists - we ALL have the grace required to follow the Commandments, or we have the grace to dispose ourselves to receive such grace.

Thanks, brother. For me, it was like a period of skating on thin ice. I don’t regret my decision. It has resulted in immense relief.

The reason I chose to reveal all of it is because I believe the ambiguity of AL must be clarified. And I know why I say it. The question is as serious as it gets for a Catholic.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The word is “ratsach.” It has a particular meaning and usage in Hebrew. It does not mean all kinds of killing, and Tantum Ergo has shown a quote from the CCC to support this.

I don’t think it matters any more what Judaism thinks it means. What the Magisterioum means is more important. The CCC and hence the Magisterium clearly and consistently sees the Commandment as about not killing. Direct personal killing is always and everywhere immoral.

I doubt whether TE’s alleged CCC ratsack thing will make much difference - where exactly is the reference?

So back to my question to you,
“If breaking the 5th does not stop bishops allowing Catholic marines to receive Communion why would you think breaking the 6th must be theologically different?”

If there are rare cases where killers can receive Communion regardless why are you so hardline on all forms of alleged adultery?

Perhaps there is also a get out of jail free “ratsack” translation exception for adultery too?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I suggest you have not studied the CCC sufficiently.

Why do you say this?
Do do really believe I see no exceptions to breaking the 5th?

That is exactly my point. Marines can legitimately receive Communion (even without confession if they believe lethal force was required for self defence) despite the fact that killing is a grave sin.

I am asking readers to consider why “killers” can be allowed to Communion despite breaking the 5th in an ongoing state of life (soldiering) yet somehow there can never be an exception for any “adulterers” .

Someone explain this to me…
What is the theologising behind Communicating Killers that somehow doesn’t hold for Communicating Adulterers?

I don’t believe there is any (theological) justification for the distinction - its just a traditional practice because the community at large would be scandalised if it was allowed.

Yet in times past killers were treated the same as today’s adulters…they were all banned to a man in some Patriachies until the time of Constantine when Catholic soldiers were considered patriotic and parishes accepted these Killers could come to Communion.

Obviously there are killers and “killers”.
Why not adulterers and “adulterers”?

It seems to me Pope Francis has read the signs of the times, it is perhaps time we accepted some persons are made passive adulterers by the active adultery of others.
Even Jesus said the same didn’t he?

 

[Thomas_White]

It seems to me Pope Francis has read the signs of the times, it is perhaps time we accepted some persons are made passive adulterers by the active adultery of others.
Even Jesus said the same didn’t he?

One is reminded of Matthew 19 and in particular this verse: “And Jesus beholding, said to them: For men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible” (Matthew, 19:26).

In Matthew 19, what is impossible for men (i.e., human beings) includes the keeping of the Ten Commandments. What is possible for God is mercy and forgiveness.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how even this verse could justify “obstinate grave sin” with respect to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[po18guy]

I find this continuing discussion to be wearying. The situations discussed in AL do not apply to me, I have no authority to enact any of it, neither does it enter into my daily consciousness. I view it as largely a manufactured controversy. We must allow the hierarchy to deal with these lofty ideals and remain obedient to them. What is the alternative? Reformation 2.0? Look at the timing of it all: 1517 > 2017.

In fact AL, is merely a Christian response to the incredibly messed up relationships that secular post-Christian culture has produced. Do we write them off, or seek some way of attempting to rehabilitate them?

 

[Vico]

That’s a good find thanks.
Lack of proper public moral disposition is in fact what a barring from Communion is all about.
This is still nothing directly to do with “mortal sin” and loss of sanctifying grace.
It has a lot to do with public grace and manners and respect for the teaching authority of the Church.

Yes, not giving scandal. Scandal may be given by what is not an actual sin.

 

[e_c]

Why do you say this?
Do do really believe I see no exceptions to breaking the 5th?

That is exactly my point. Marines can legitimately receive Communion (even without confession if they believe lethal force was required for self defence) despite the fact that killing is a grave sin.

I am asking readers to consider why “killers” can be allowed to Communion despite breaking the 5th in an ongoing state of life (soldiering) yet somehow there can never be an exception for any “adulterers” .

Someone explain this to me…
What is the theologising behind Communicating Killers that somehow doesn’t hold for Communicating Adulterers?

I don’t believe there is any (theological) justification for the distinction - its just a traditional practice because the community at large would be scandalised if it was allowed.

Yet in times past killers were treated the same as today’s adulters…they were all banned to a man in some Patriachies until the time of Constantine when Catholic soldiers were considered patriotic and parishes accepted these Killers could come to Communion.

Obviously there are killers and “killers”.
Why not adulterers and “adulterers”?

It seems to me Pope Francis has read the signs of the times, it is perhaps time we accepted some persons are made passive adulterers by the active adultery of others.
Even Jesus said the same didn’t he?

One is a sin, the other isn’t. It’s not a sin to accidentally kill an unjust aggressor in self defense, nor in lawful capital punishment, nor in just wars. It’s always a sin to commit adultery, which is necessarily a free act (or else it is assault).

 

[Vico]

One is a sin, the other isn’t. It’s not a sin to accidentally kill an unjust aggressor in self defense, nor in lawful capital punishment, nor in just wars. It’s always a sin to commit adultery, which is necessarily a free act (or else it is assault).

In St. Thomas Aquinas’s species of lust, they correspond to the various conditions of women, and sometimes one of the two are unwilling (assault as you mention) so the culpability falls onto only one.

• Fornication
• Adultery
• Sacrilege (when it coincides with species of lust)
• Seduction (virgin)
• Rape (with seduction or without)
• Incest
• Unnatural vice
• Uncleanness or effeminacy (masturbation)
• Improper copulation
• Sodomy (with an undue sex)
• Bestiality

 

[carn]

There is no situation which justifies the individual conscience taking the place of and especially overruling a properly authorized tribunal in matters where the tribunal is there to address.

After thinking a few days about it, i think, that from a very, very theoretical point of view, i think i am still correct to say, that the Church might give pastor accompanied consicience priority over tribunal decisions.

But for practical purposes this will never work out fine and it would require at minimum a careful rework of all respective laws, which will never happen in the near future, as such would need listening to a group of experts regarding Church law with a strong fondness for what some call “black and white thinking” (crucial to hunt down all possible contradictions and deal with them as contradictions deserve); but as people with good knowledge of Church law and fondness for so-called “black and white thinking” currently have not such a good reputation with the Pope it for all i guess cannot happen.

That leaves the current laws intact, which cannot be consistently be overcome by footnotes, leaving the option potentially wanted by some, but in truth not realized.

Can you give me an example of a second union which would be publicly considered valid once the tribunal found the first union to be invalid? There is a reason for the jurisprudence in multiple divorce cases (if you remarry 4 times, you must get 3 annulments to have the 4th convalidated, as each union must be investigated), but I wonder if you can give me a case where this would actually happen…

I do not understand the question exactly; misworded? because what is the problem with a second union publically considered valid if the first was officially considered invalid? Do couples considered validly married have problems due to others not accepting tribunal descisions about prior marriages being invalid?

Canon law is easy until you actually start to do it.

I do not mind complex, comlicated and difficult laws; they are in a certain sense fun.

@all others

I try to explain something critical, that i think e_c also sees:

All the well intent and working around laws with in some individual cases somehow questionable consequences can only fail, unless it is done right.

Think about the law, requiring to stop at a red traffic light; a sensible and just law? Yes; it probably saves thousands of life yearly or even more.

Is it always right and always just? No; e.g. if one drives an injured to the hospital, enforcing it might be cruel.

But for that situation, exemptions have usually been created or at least are acknowledged by courts, which thoght them through carefully.

Look at the situation in the middle of the night, an empty intersection, no human or even non-human life for miles aroung and your traffic light is red; is it in an absolute sense right, if you stop and wait for green? Actually, from the intent of the law this is stupid; because the law is intended to avoid collisions and if you are alone out there, no collision with other traffic can happen.

But if one would want to change that? e.g. that under some circumstances the individual driver is free to ignore the red light, if its obviously stupid to wait? MAKE A LAW FOR IT.

Otherwise you have a mess; in one police district, the cops will fine you afterwards, if they get your number via traffic cameras and think you misjudged that you were “alone” enough to ignore red, in another they will not care; and with no indication when and how such a “ok to ignore red light”-situation arises you will get more and more people simply out of laziness start ignoring the red light even if they are not realy alone, just the other is away enough from the intersection; and then some will get riskier and riskier; and some will start to see the red light only as a suggestion; and then someon will die because of a traffic accident CAUSED IN THE END BY THOSE implementing this law workaround leading to a breakdown of discipline in respcting the red light; of course the individual driver will also be guilty; but the ones pushing a law work around without any structure or rules or even the minimum care required when meddling with laws will be guilty as well.

With the non defined and non implented but just implied and carried out workaround around canon law of course nobody will be guilty of causing a death; only of sacrilege.

 

[Thomas_White]

After thinking a few days about it, i think, that from a very, very theoretical point of view, i think i am still correct to say, that the Church might give pastor accompanied consicience priority over tribunal decisions.

But for practical purposes this will never work out fine and it would require at minimum a careful rework of all respective laws, which will never happen in the near future, as such would need listening to a group of experts regarding Church law with a strong fondness for what some call “black and white thinking” (crucial to hunt down all possible contradictions and deal with them as contradictions deserve); but as people with good knowledge of Church law and fondness for so-called “black and white thinking” currently have not such a good reputation with the Pope it for all i guess cannot happen.

That leaves the current laws intact, which cannot be consistently be overcome by footnotes, leaving the option potentially wanted by some, but in truth not realized.

I do not understand the question exactly; misworded? because what is the problem with a second union publically considered valid if the first was officially considered invalid? Do couples considered validly married have problems due to others not accepting tribunal descisions about prior marriages being invalid?

I do not mind complex, comlicated and difficult laws; they are in a certain sense fun.

@all others

I try to explain something critical, that i think e_c also sees:

All the well intent and working around laws with in some individual cases somehow questionable consequences can only fail, unless it is done right.

Think about the law, requiring to stop at a red traffic light; a sensible and just law? Yes; it probably saves thousands of life yearly or even more.

Is it always right and always just? No; e.g. if one drives an injured to the hospital, enforcing it might be cruel.

But for that situation, exemptions have usually been created or at least are acknowledged by courts, which thoght them through carefully.

Look at the situation in the middle of the night, an empty intersection, no human or even non-human life for miles aroung and your traffic light is red; is it in an absolute sense right, if you stop and wait for green? Actually, from the intent of the law this is stupid; because the law is intended to avoid collisions and if you are alone out there, no collision with other traffic can happen.

But if one would want to change that? e.g. that under some circumstances the individual driver is free to ignore the red light, if its obviously stupid to wait? MAKE A LAW FOR IT.

Otherwise you have a mess; in one police district, the cops will fine you afterwards, if they get your number via traffic cameras and think you misjudged that you were “alone” enough to ignore red, in another they will not care; and with no indication when and how such a “ok to ignore red light”-situation arises you will get more and more people simply out of laziness start ignoring the red light even if they are not realy alone, just the other is away enough from the intersection; and then some will get riskier and riskier; and some will start to see the red light only as a suggestion; and then someon will die because of a traffic accident CAUSED IN THE END BY THOSE implementing this law workaround leading to a breakdown of discipline in respcting the red light; of course the individual driver will also be guilty; but the ones pushing a law work around without any structure or rules or even the minimum care required when meddling with laws will be guilty as well.

With the non defined and non implented but just implied and carried out workaround around canon law of course nobody will be guilty of causing a death; only of sacrilege.

Nonetheless, the question is simply thus: Should a Catholic in the state of mortal sin be permitted to receive Holy Communion?

 

[e_c]

**1. **After thinking a few days about it, i think, that from a very, very theoretical point of view, i think i am still correct to say, that the Church might give pastor accompanied consicience priority over tribunal decisions.

**2. **But for practical purposes this will never work out fine and it would require at minimum a careful rework of all respective laws, which will never happen in the near future, as such would need listening to a group of experts regarding Church law with a strong fondness for what some call “black and white thinking” (crucial to hunt down all possible contradictions and deal with them as contradictions deserve); but as people with good knowledge of Church law and fondness for so-called “black and white thinking” currently have not such a good reputation with the Pope it for all i guess cannot happen.

**3. **That leaves the current laws intact, which cannot be consistently be overcome by footnotes, leaving the option potentially wanted by some, but in truth not realized.

**4. **I do not understand the question exactly; misworded? because what is the problem with a second union publically considered valid if the first was officially considered invalid? Do couples considered validly married have problems due to others not accepting tribunal descisions about prior marriages being invalid?

1. It would have to be the pastor who makes the decision. It can never be the individual. This is contrary to the nature of commutative justice… Here is an extremely important and often overlooked point (not by Our Lord) which proves why it can’t be up to the judgment of an “interested party”:

THE OTHER PERSON IN THE UNION HAS RIGHTS TOO.

This is at least part of why Christ accuses those who want remarriage of being hard-hearted… Nowadays, the accusation goes the other way, doesn’t it. Except sometimes, the other person is left out to dry. This must be investigated by an objective party.

1. It does not work even conceptually, as it contradicts the very idea of commutative justice… One may not be his own judge and jury.
2. Yes.
3. Its wording is fine. I answered my own question though, in a previous post… It is not simply about validity but about how that validity becomes assumed. Is it automatic once the previous union is declared null, or no? It depends, actually.

Law is fun, as you say, but it is deadly serious. And whoever is drafting the Holy Father’s documents these days (not just AL) is either a maniacal genius pushing just the right buttons or desperately needs to go back to school. I prefer to think it is the latter.

 

[pnewton]

Then the priest becomes the tribunal, in effect. It might be possible to rewrite canon law to make this the mechanism of annulments.

It would be disastrous. It’s also not what is actually being done - it is “sidestepping” the tribunal, or worse, overruling it.

In other words, it does not seem possible.

I do not share your sentiment that it is not possible. I believe it to be what the Holy Father is envisioning, even though it will not be written in canon law. It is clear he wants a way to minister outside of canon law, which is but one tool of the Church.

I also do not share your belief that this “will be” a catastrophe or disaster. In my experience, those terms are over-used. As to what the future holds, no one knows.

Except God speaks through the authoritative decision of a tribunal, even if that tribunal gets the decision wrong.

Wow! God speaks through the tribunal. Well, if you can show me this, I would be most interested, though it would not preclude God speaking through the priest.

It is a matter of obedience. We can’t exempt ourselves, presuming to know better than the Church.

But is that what you are doing if the Holy Father allows for something outside canon law. The Rock upon which the Church is built is Peter, not Canon Law. It almost seems as though you have elevated Canon Law and its role in the Church over that of the Holy Father. I know I must be mistaken somewhere.

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing in doctrine that precludes a priest arriving at a decision different than a tribunal, and having the authority to act on it. You may see it as problematic, but it does not contradict doctrine.

I think an area in which there is some disagreement over doctrine, as evidenced at the last synod, is whether it is actual mortal sin or only grave matter that prevents one from being unworthy to receive communion. As there is not agreement on this, how can it be considered doctrine? If it is unworthiness that prohibits communion, then that only exists in the presence of actual (subjective) mortal sin. That alone kills the spiritual communion. Yet there is also the element of communion with the Church. The latter sure seems more disciplinary and the former more doctrinal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t think it matters any more what Judaism thinks it means. What the Magisterioum means is more important. The CCC and hence the Magisterium clearly and consistently sees the Commandment as about not killing. Direct personal killing is always and everywhere immoral.

I doubt whether TE’s alleged CCC ratsack thing will make much difference - where exactly is the reference?

So back to my question to you,
“If breaking the 5th does not stop bishops allowing Catholic marines to receive Communion why would you think breaking the 6th must be theologically different?”

If there are rare cases where killers can receive Communion regardless why are you so hardline on all forms of alleged adultery?

Perhaps there is also a get out of jail free “ratsack” translation exception for adultery too?

Excuse me, but ‘ratsack’ translation? I took the quoted material directly from the catechism of the Catholic Church as posted on the Vatican website.

And I color-bolded the relevant part.

And what, pray tell, are you attempting to imply? If you think the first ‘killers’ (your word) can receive communion so why are we ‘hardline’ on adultery; are you possibly trying to say that one wrong somehow justifies another wrong??

Are you so desperate to make your alleged point that you’re willing to argue the above? As Catholic teaching? As what Catholics should strive to do? "Hey, these people can do a bad thing and ‘get stuff’, let’s allow other people doing another bad thing to get stuff too’.

If you aren’t, then I fail to see why you asked the question you did as it is certainly not at all relevant to the actual facts.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Oh goody gumdrops! :bounce: Now we get to fight endlessly about this over here!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why do you say this?
Do do really believe I see no exceptions to breaking the 5th?

That is exactly my point. Marines can legitimately receive Communion (even without confession if they believe lethal force was required for self defence) despite the fact that killing is a grave sin.

I am asking readers to consider why “killers” can be allowed to Communion despite breaking the 5th in an ongoing state of life (soldiering) yet somehow there can never be an exception for any “adulterers” .

Someone explain this to me…
What is the theologising behind Communicating Killers that somehow doesn’t hold for Communicating Adulterers?

I don’t believe there is any (theological) justification for the distinction - its just a traditional practice because the community at large would be scandalised if it was allowed.

Yet in times past killers were treated the same as today’s adulters…they were all banned to a man in some Patriachies until the time of Constantine when Catholic soldiers were considered patriotic and parishes accepted these Killers could come to Communion.

Obviously there are killers and “killers”.
Why not adulterers and “adulterers”?

It seems to me Pope Francis has read the signs of the times, it is perhaps time we accepted some persons are made passive adulterers by the active adultery of others.
Even Jesus said the same didn’t he?

There are so many things wrong in this post that it would probably take a small book to address them.

The problem is that you keep putting forth all these ‘magisterial statements’ as if they are ‘self-evident truths’ and not simply your own personal opinions.

No matter how you slice it, you’re still attempting to pass your personal definitions and ideas as ‘gospel’ and they are not.

Therefore, while you may have plenty to say, and while it is certainly worthwhile in a sense for those of us who recognize your errors to keep on patiently correcting them, in order that others may not be drawn astray likewise, I think that several posters here have over time made it quite clear regarding where you are going wrong when it comes to your misunderstanding of mortal sin and your attempts to redefine words to your own choosing regardless of what they actually mean.

Since my darling grandson has decided to gift me with the stomach bug that his little classmates are passing through school, I don’t have the time or indeed the stomach (so to speak) to address your latest errors further, but rest assured, once I am no longer nauseated (at least, not by the stomach flu) I shall return.

 

[pnewton]

Since my darling grandson has decided to gift me with the stomach bug that his little classmates are passing through school, I don’t have the time or indeed the stomach (so to speak) to address your latest errors further, but rest assured, once I am no longer nauseated (at least, not by the stomach flu) I shall return.

You have my sympathy. May God grant you a speedy recovery.