Augustinism and Pelagianism

[simpleas]

I was answering what I thought was the question – how then do people who receive grace so easily fall back into a sin? If we love God so much why do we continue to sin?

Please, I am curious as to what “catholic text” you are referring to? And what “not catholic opinion” are you referring to?
.

It was a question, not a judgement on anyone’s soul, but maybe it came across that way.

Your quotes from CCC etc. Your own catholic opinion? Most people I meet (even priests) have some of their own opinion with regards to some issues within the church.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for your reply. I thank you, also, for setting an example of gratitude.

Do you remember this info from Cardinal Ratzinger, pulled up by Vames?:

Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity criticizes the old theory about a vengeful God needing reparation: “Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”. He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

Do you remember what Paul said, that nothing separates us from the love of God? The only possibility that we have of breaking a union with God is by knowingly refusing God. I have yet to see that happen. God does not wait for the guilty to be reconciled. Jesus did not wait from the cross to for the unrepentant to be reconciled. God forgives, always, and the only time disunion happens is when people refuse union.

In addition, when people sin, it is not for the purpose of refusing union. People sin because of lack of empathy, which is due to lack of relationship with the Father. It is not sin that causes the lack of relationship, but the other way around; lack of relationship, an undeveloped relationship, allows sin to continue. To the degree that we see Jesus in every person, that is an indicator of awareness of God and relationship with Him. And to me, forgiveness plays a huge role in development of empathy. Any depiction of God as less than unconditionally forgiving compromises the development of empathy, compassion, and “the law written in our hearts”.

God-as-our-conscience gives us the impression that we have broken our relationship. The conscience beats us up and says we are bad and so forth when we break the rules, which is what it is supposed to do. Of course, God-as-our-conscience is going to give us the impression that bad behavior shoves God away from us. This is my answer to this question:

“Can we believe God made man, but man did not break his union with God, he just thought he did?”

Belief in Adam being more aware, thus more compassionate and “wholey”, and more aware of God than any other born human, omniscient? Well, why not? However, if he had such awareness, then he would not have sinned, he would know that his sin would have caused great suffering for so many, so then the story does not make sense. The story is, to me, about man being given a conscience. It is more of an allegory.

Yes I remember this now I’ve re-read it. When he says this "Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God

What guilt is he talking about. If man had not done anything against God why would he feel guilt? We talk about a deed that took place at the beginning of man kind. Most all early religions speak of God/s anger, I wonder how did fear of God come about if man had not first committed some sort of deed…

If we were only given a conscience, then we could never have known God at all, from the beginning, that is until Jesus came. But we have all the prophets before Jesus.
My conscience has never lead me to believe that God ever left me. But I have been taught about the love of God (as has everyone after v2) People were always taught, (maybe in a different way) that God loves us, but they still held the belief that God was angry.

You have never seen anyone push God away, do you mean people of our faith? I’m sure you know or have known a atheist…I’ve been around a few. And no it doesn’t bother me!

 

[grannymh]

It was a question, not a judgement on anyone’s soul, but maybe it came across that way.

Your quotes from CCC etc. Your own catholic opinion? Most people I meet (even priests) have some of their own opinion with regards to some issues within the church.

I am not sure what you are referring to as “some issues within the church.” Naturally, my own Catholic opinion regarding a doctrine would be that of the doctrine.

Obviously, there are a few Catholics who alter the meaning of this or that point of Divine Revelation which is contained in Catholic teachings. Jesus warned us. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7: 15) Here we see the warning against those “catholics” who deny Divine Revelation in Catholic doctrines. Father Michael Guinan is an example with his media splash a couple of years ago.

What people fail to see is the real slippery slope which can carry “symbolism only” to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The issue is "Does the Catholic Church have the authority to determine which is “symbolism only” and which is a real true event which can have symbolic language in addition to its reality?

If “issues” refers to actual Catholic doctrines, properly understood in its entirety, then I cannot imagine having a problem with any doctrine – provided that the doctrine is presented in its entirety and properly understood. In its entirety includes the related or subsequent doctrines.

One of the problems today is that some people tend to hack off part of the doctrine or the related doctrines. People prefer “sound bites”. And when it comes to simple logic –

May I ask if you have particular issues in mind?

 

[OneSheep]

One of the works at major Church Councils is the affirmation of basic, foundational beliefs. Apparently, one of the foundational beliefs is the direct connection of Original Sin with the existence of the first human, Adam. Therefore, when one accepts the existence of the first human Adam and consequently the relationship of Adam with his Creator, one also accepts the existence of Original Sin. Like that very old Frank Sinatra song, “you can’t have one without the other.”

To me, this is another assertion, not a logical conclusion. You are still not saying how one causes the other. “Original Sin” could easily be redefined too.

Original Sin, to me, makes more sense to me in that we are talking about the fact that all people have the capacity to sin; we are born ignorant, we don’t know better, and we especially do not know the value of the people we are hurting.

This was explained again yesterday at a retreat I went to led by a priest (not in terms of original sin, but from where sin comes). He specifically referred to “forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a time where Jesus returned evil with forgiveness. If there were people in the crowd repenting, Granny, they were not doing evil. The priest called on us Catholics to “give away forgiveness”, which reflects the tone of the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger I provided on this thread. The priest explained that the people certainly knew that they were killing Jesus, but what they did not know, nor do any of us fully appreciate, the goodness of God in every human being.

Here is a request that you have maintained silence about, and I want to know if you can do this:

I am asking that you understand that there is room in the Church for different journeys, different ways of looking at things.

So, what do you think, Granny, is there room or is there not?

Have you ever heard the story of the person who dies, and then is shown an open door to a place where all the people he thought were unacceptable were front and center? He says “that must surely be hell” and he chooses another direction. God begs him to join the group, but he is quite certain that the place where “those people” are is the wrong place, a bad place.

Is there room, Granny?

As Fr. Rohr wrote recently, Jesus worked to move His religion, the Jewish religion, in the direction of more justice, more mercy, and more inclusivity.

 

[Sirach2]

I had occasion to post in another thread in response to a similar train of thought here, so it is worth repeating for those who have difficulty in understanding Our Lord’s words.

Originally Posted by SoulSolace

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’ Luke 23:34

It seems pretty impossible considering the circumstances. Crucifying someone is a pretty horrendous thing. Crucifying God, quite worse.
So what did Jesus mean by the petition? .

Jesus gave us living example of letting go of injuries done to us by our persecutors, in the same manner as St. Stephen did (our first martyr). What we cannot do is apply Jesus’ words to the idea that God will justify and forgive all men, no matter whether they are repentant or not. Romans 12:19, “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay.”

We release them to God’s judgment and free our hearts from bitterness and anger, none of which were in the pure heart of Christ. As God, He may have known that their sin did not meet all the conditions for mortal, since the CCC says that we must KNOW that our sin is evil and do it anyway. We don’t know either, who Jesus was referring to. The crowd of bystanders who had nothing to do with it? The soldiers who were under obedience to carry out the command?

His request asking that the Father forgive them, does not mean that there was no ultimate punishment or judgment by God towards those who knew what they were doing … with malice!. Nobody could say in future readings of scripture that Jesus had a hard heart and did not follow his own advice. It was necessary to give example. Remember that Jesus said of Judas it would be better if he had not been born (so evil was his treason). We know not how the Father judged Judas, even though Jesus extended friendship when he asked him quietly, "Would you betray me with a kiss?"

We know that God is infinitely just as well as merciful. Let us entrust this matter to His Omniscient Wisdom and not make a God of our own fashioning, lest we hear His words about the millstone around our neck for scandalizing others.

 

[grannymh]

Coincidence?

At the bottom of our Prayer Tree e-mail, there is always a thought/prayer about God and ourselves. Tonight, I read:

“My God, I ardently pray for forgiveness, imploring Your compassion
for our misuse of that power.”

 

[Sirach2]

Coincidence?

At the bottom of our Prayer Tree e-mail, there is always a thought/prayer about God and ourselves. Tonight, I read:

“My God, I ardently pray for forgiveness, imploring Your compassion
for our misuse of that power.”

Timely indeed …

 

[Sirach2]

Another timely coincidence … praise God!

I just finished praying the LoTH for evening prayer, and this was the third Canticle from 1 Peter 2:21-24:

When He was made to suffer, He did not counter with threats.
Instead He delivered Himself up to the one who judges justly.

There is the peaceful resignation and forgiveness he breathed forth at the cross, trusting completely in his Father who** judges justly. **

 

[OneSheep]

quote from Sirach:

I have never seen such nonsense and distortion of the teachings of our faith. May God correct your misinformation.

It sounds like you are feeling a bit disappointed at my viewpoint. You want there to be only one way of interpreting the CCC and scripture, perhaps, and that way there is more security in orthodoxy. You would like me to believe in the Gospel as interpreted the same way you do.

If you hold my viewpoint against me, Sirach, I hope you find it in your faith to forgive. I am trying to do the best that I can to show the unlimited love of God.

 

[grannymh]

I cannot believe I am up this late reading all this.

Coincidentally, I was thinking that in my tiny area of the wide world, there are real people who are not objecting to a real Adam and a real Original Sin. One dear elderly priest thought I was referring to monogamy when I mentioned the necessity of monogenism. I shut my mouth. (Closing my mouth does happen occasionally.)

Back to the interesting world of CAF. From my point of view, one can talk all the flowery language possible, but the line is drawn when it comes to a belief in a real Adam as the first parent of the human species and a real Original Sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity.

A belief in a real Adam and a real Original Sin is essential when it comes to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Now, I do understand that people are so caught up in ignoring the reality of human origin, that they might not figure out that Jesus Christ had to be Divine. But when one believes in God and one believes that a human is not God, it is easy to figure out that the human is not on the same level as God and therefore, Adam, on his own, cannot make up for a sin against God.

Hopefully, readers can see the holes in the “big tent” where everyone can believe what they want even when it is not logical. Since Adam is not on the same level as God, who will reconcile humanity with Divinity so that after bodily death we, who are truly human, can reside in the love of the Divine God? Someone stronger than our puny selves is needed to re-open the gates of heaven.

Or maybe those who do not accept the reality of Adam, Original Sin, and consequently ignore the necessity of Christ’s Divinity will bring umbrellas to the big tent just in case truth rains. (Pun intended.)

Now think about this. If Christ is not Divine because Divinity is not necessary because Original Sin and its maker Adam do not really exist, what really happens to sinners who commit the big one–mortal sin?
:newidea:
That must be the reason for the silly idea that real personal repentance need not be necessary. Someone hanging from a cross forgave everyone regardless if the person wanted to be forgiven or not. Let’s face it. Some mortal sins are really pleasurable.

Heavens to Betsy! (Oops. Now everyone will know how old I am!) I have gotten myself in a muddle over poor Adam and the real Original Sin.

Personally, I think it is easier to accept the Catholic account about the real Adam who committed the real Original Sin and the real Jesus, True God and True Man, Who is necessary for opening the gates of heaven to you and me.

 

[grannymh]

Surely, you are mistaken, whether inadvertently or deliberately? There is support all throughout Catholicism, scripture, and the CCC. I often find such debates to be fruitless, but I am concerned that false teachings here may totally destroy another’s faith.

I agree. Because I have seen the struggle and the hurt of a CAF poster who was caught off guard by false teachings coming from a Catholic. In my experience, it isn’t often that a CAF Catholic lets his confusion be seen in its hurt-filled depths. But once it is seen, it is not forgotten.

 

[Sirach2]

It sounds like you are feeling a bit disappointed at my viewpoint. You want there to be only one way of interpreting the CCC and scripture, perhaps, and that way there is more security in orthodoxy.
You would like me to believe in the Gospel as interpreted the same way you do.

If you hold my viewpoint against me, Sirach, I hope you find it in your faith to forgive. I am trying to do the best that I can to show the unlimited love of God.

For one who professes to be a good Catholic, “showing the unlimited love of God” – then how is it that you forgot about the 8th commandment forbidding rash judgment? Pretty strong assumptions and accusations, yes?

For the record, you have misjudged me and are attempting to paint me into your narrow box that makes you appear as the only righteous one who follows the true Catholic faith.

Let me pose two more questions, that hopefully you will not sidestep as you have done previously.

Oh knock off the sanctimonious nonsense. You’re beginning to sound like a bad tv psychic. **Deal with what is written. **You keep bringing up these deflection tactics when you can’t respond to the points being brought up.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10745495&postcount=424
.

1. How long have you been practicing the Catholic faith before you converted?
2. How old are you?

 

[grannymh]

To me, this is another assertion, not a logical conclusion. You are still not saying how one causes the other. “Original Sin” could easily be redefined too.

Original Sin, to me, makes more sense to me in that we are talking about the fact that all people have the capacity to sin; we are born ignorant, we don’t know better, and we especially do not know the value of the people we are hurting.

This was explained again yesterday at a retreat I went to led by a priest (not in terms of original sin, but from where sin comes). He specifically referred to “forgive them, for they know not what they do” as a time where Jesus returned evil with forgiveness. If there were people in the crowd repenting, Granny, they were not doing evil. The priest called on us Catholics to “give away forgiveness”, which reflects the tone of the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger I provided on this thread. The priest explained that the people certainly knew that they were killing Jesus, but what they did not know, nor do any of us fully appreciate, the goodness of God in every human being.

Here is a request that you have maintained silence about, and I want to know if you can do this:

I am asking that you understand that there is room in the Church for different journeys, different ways of looking at things.

So, what do you think, Granny, is there room or is there not?

Have you ever heard the story of the person who dies, and then is shown an open door to a place where all the people he thought were unacceptable were front and center? He says “that must surely be hell” and he chooses another direction. God begs him to join the group, but he is quite certain that the place where “those people” are is the wrong place, a bad place.

Is there room, Granny?

As Fr. Rohr wrote recently, Jesus worked to move His religion, the Jewish religion, in the direction of more justice, more mercy, and more inclusivity.

From post 122 which asks “Is there room, Granny?”
"Here is a request that you have maintained silence about, and I want to know if you can do this:

I am asking that you understand that there is room in the Church for different journeys, different ways of looking at things.

So, what do you think, Granny, is there room or is there not?"

May I correctly assume that you and the priests you refer to are in this church where there is room for different journeys, different ways of looking at things? Until you say otherwise-- I believe that you are in this church because you have allowed that both you and I can have different opinions. As I have said before, I heard a similar proposal known as the big tent theory. Sad to report, I never found out what were the guidelines for this kind of church.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. It seems to me that what you are describing is a Catholic Church which has no real guidelines limiting the type of different journeys. Plus, the different ways of looking at things would be unlimited. Before I can answer your direct question “… is there room or is there not?” I would appreciate your personal description of some of the different ways of looking at things. What things? What ways?

How can you ask me to understand that there is room in the Church for different journeys, different ways of looking at things without giving me some facts? The editors I worked for in the days before personal computers would jump from their graves if I responded to you without facts in my back pocket.

I am looking forward to your factual descriptions and then I will be able to truthfully answer your question “So, what do you think, Granny, is there room or is there not?”

 

[simpleas]

I am not sure what you are referring to as “some issues within the church.” Naturally, my own Catholic opinion regarding a doctrine would be that of the doctrine.

Obviously, there are a few Catholics who alter the meaning of this or that point of Divine Revelation which is contained in Catholic teachings. Jesus warned us. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7: 15) Here we see the warning against those “catholics” who deny Divine Revelation in Catholic doctrines. Father Michael Guinan is an example with his media splash a couple of years ago.

What people fail to see is the real slippery slope which can carry “symbolism only” to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The issue is "Does the Catholic Church have the authority to determine which is “symbolism only” and which is a real true event which can have symbolic language in addition to its reality?

If “issues” refers to actual Catholic doctrines, properly understood in its entirety, then I cannot imagine having a problem with any doctrine – provided that the doctrine is presented in its entirety and properly understood. In its entirety includes the related or subsequent doctrines.

One of the problems today is that some people tend to hack off part of the doctrine or the related doctrines. People prefer “sound bites”. And when it comes to simple logic –

May I ask if you have particular issues in mind?

When I went to my PP last year to ask about the CCC and receive some spiritual guidence for the first time ever in my life (and probably the last) certain things I asked about he just agreed with me. I was waiting on him telling me what I didn’t want to hear, that I should keep refraining from this or that, or I shouldn’t think that way etc…You know things that people will say on here to others who are lost, confused etc.

One of the “issues” he said he struggled with was if a person he knew was divorced and remarried, if they approach for communion he didn’t think he could refuse.
To me this is the church saying to a person…“No we will not let you receive the Lord, even if you have repented of the sin”
I can’t believe Christ would refuse himself to his children, but the church controls all of this.

I’m not aware of who Father Michael Guinan is or what he said.

If your opinions of doctrine are only that of doctrine then I do respect that as I think I said before. I wonder though if you ever questioned something, and found it hard to accept as a teaching that would come from Christ. I know we are told all comes from the holy spirit, and I haven’t studied the whole bible, ccc, or council of trent. I have attended church, lived as best a chrsitian as I can, and listened to church teaching, I just didn’t know there was so many rules before I came on CAF.

 

[OneSheep]

For one who professes to be a good Catholic, “showing the unlimited love of God” – then how is it that you forgot about the 8th commandment forbidding rash judgment? Pretty strong assumptions and accusations, yes?

Feel free to explain where I judged you, and we can visit that. In the mean time, please know that I never intended to do so.

For the record, you have misjudged me and are attempting to paint me into your narrow box that makes you appear as the only righteous one who follows the true Catholic faith.

Your record is in error. Actually, I have said repeatedly on this thread that there is room for both approaches in our great Church. I am not the only righteous one, brother, we both are.

1. How long have you been practicing the Catholic faith before you converted?

Is it now your turn for a “rash judgment”? Please read my posts and understand my catechesis. If you don’t agree with the priests who taught me, so be it.

1. How old are you?

Old enough to know that I have a great deal to learn about God, and that I am a fool. Speak to me of God, Sirach.

 

[Sirach2]

OneSheep:

Sirach2:

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

*Where did I say Jesus was forgiving *only the repentant? **
Again, where did I say that St. Stephen forgave only the repentant? **
Third time. I see. If you say it often enough, maybe I will believe your words. Again, that is not what I said anywhere. If you want to discuss this, it is critical to stay with what I wrote, not what you are trying to paint.

Read my words again, please.

I read your words again, now I ask that you read mine. You cut into a discussion I was having with Granny, where I was saying Jesus forgave the unrepentant, and you contested my position. Now it sounds like you are agreeing with my position, so I am confused. Please look at post 123.

You did not read the meaning underlying my words here, so I’ll post them once again.

Sirach2:

Jesus gave us living example of letting go of injuries done to us by our persecutors, in the same manner as St. Stephen did (our first martyr). What we cannot do is apply Jesus’ words to the idea that God will justify and forgive all men, no matter whether they are repentant or not. Romans 12:19, “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to the wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay.”

When He was made to suffer, He did not counter with threats.
Instead He delivered Himself up to the one who judges justly.

There is the peaceful resignation and forgiveness he breathed forth at the cross, trusting completely in his Father who** judges justly.**

Nowhere did I state that Jesus forgave the unrepentant, but that He entrusted His persecutors to His Father … who judges justly. That is the meaning of forgiveness, not a unilateral blanket absolution of the guilty, but a letting go of one’s strong emotions, and turning the injury over to God who “Will repay.” So, no, I am not agreeing with you. I asked the question below, since you made the leap from your understanding of Jesus’ words, to believing God is also unilaterally forgives the unrepentant.

OneSheep:

Sirach2:

Is this the connect you are striving to make, using Jesus’ words on the cross, that God also forgives anybody and everybody, whether or not they repent?

God as I know Him, the prodigal son’s father, waits with open arms. The forgiveness-from-the-heart has already happened. God allows us to choose rejection, though.

More evasiveness. Please just answer the question,
Does God forgive the unrepentant?
Are the unrepentant included in the “already happened” group?

I am saying that it makes sense in terms of my own spirituality. I forgive everyone I hold something against whether or not they repent. I cannot fathom a God who would withhold forgiveness where I would not.You see, from your perspective my position is nonsense, but my perspective makes sense to me.

So it appears that you ARE saying, God forgives the unrepentant. That is heretical, did you know?

 

[Sirach2]

OneSheep:

Sirach2:

1. How long have you been practicing the Catholic faith before you converted?

Is it now your turn for a “rash judgment”? Please read my posts and understand my catechesis. If you don’t agree with the priests who taught me, so be it.

As long as you are playing games and dancing around issues within discussions, I do not see any chance of meaningful dialogue. You have been tiptoeing throughout this thread, putting forth bizarre ideas and concepts, but when anyone challenges you, you spin their words and put forth your own version of Catholicism that is not authentic teaching of our faith.

You may wish to believe your truth and desire to follow it, but I ask that you consider the harm being done to others and be wary of the millstone.

 

[Sirach2]

OneSheep:

If you don’t agree with the priests who taught me, so be it.

In all charity, I need to address the teachings of priest(s) whom you adhere to for doctrinal formation, especially Fr. Richard Rohr. You began a topic with his daily meditations in a Social Group and have referenced him several times elsewhere on the forum. I am concerned about his orthodoxy, as are others with more wisdom and study of his works, especially the new age and enneagram, both of which are condemned by the Vatican.

Fr. Rohr is deeply involved in the New Age. Source
Fr. Bryce Sibley, STL, after having read one of his books, concluded that “Fr. Richard Rohr adheres to some very questionable, if not dangerous, beliefs.” In this article, he lists several serious flaws in Fr. Rohr’s teachings, such as his assertion that the crucifixion wasn’t necessary because the Incarnation was all that was needed to redeem humanity.
Fr. Rohr also has a “weak understanding” of original sin, Fr. Sibley said, noting that “without a proper understanding of Original Sin, Christ is reduced to nothing more than a prophet who teaches us to love ourselves, and this is unfortunately who Rohr’s Christ turns out to be.” I could go on and on, but I think you have the general idea that this is a priest in need of prayer whose writings and activities do not reflect the true teachings of the Church. Please pray for him!

The above article also references a well-known clergyman on CatholicCulture whose comments may be read here.
And so our discussion of the body brings us to Rohr’s thinking on the Redemption that Christ brought about in His body. In the first chapter of Adam’s Return, Rohr makes this very puzzling assertion regarding the Incarnation: “‘Incarnation is already redemption,’ and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God’s commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing’ place of God.” Rohr is saying that the crucifixion of our Lord was not necessary for redemption; that the Incarnation already brought about redemption.
To his detriment, Rohr, in his writings and conferences, gives the impression that Christ is not truly the divine Son of God, whose sufferings redeemed us from our sins, but rather just another guru, prophet, or great moral teacher, who like so many others before Him came to show us the path to self-enlightenment.

When you used the expression that God’s forgiveness “already happened”, it strangely echoes the thoughts of Fr. Rohr. I don’t know whether you are cognizant of error, and I do sincerely hope that you are open to correction before it is too late and you become so entrenched in your misunderstandings that you cannot differentiate between truth and deception. This is why I asked how long you have been a Catholic, because you strongly resemble someone of Protestant background believing OSAS, and Sola Scriptura.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Please stick to the original topic.

Discussion of whether God only forgives the repentant has been moved here.

 

[grannymh]

When I went to my PP last year to ask about the CCC and receive some spiritual guidence for the first time ever in my life (and probably the last) certain things I asked about he just agreed with me. I was waiting on him telling me what I didn’t want to hear, that I should keep refraining from this or that, or I shouldn’t think that way etc…You know things that people will say on here to others who are lost, confused etc.

One of the “issues” he said he struggled with was if a person he knew was divorced and remarried, if they approach for communion he didn’t think he could refuse.
To me this is the church saying to a person…“No we will not let you receive the Lord, even if you have repented of the sin”

The sin is adultery or whatever name describes sex outside marriage. Since there are many reasons a divorced person can validly remarry, the priest has to be positive of the couple’s situation.

I can’t believe Christ would refuse himself to his children, but the church controls all of this.

Actually, all the Church is doing is holding to the truth that one should not receive Communion unworthily, that is, in the state of Mortal Sin. A divorced person, who is in the State of Sanctifying Grace, should receive Our Lord as many times as possible.

I’m not aware of who Father Michael Guinan is or what he said.

I am not sure if Father Guinan still teaches. However, he is still in the news for his writings and teachings against basic Divine Revelation regarding human origin and Original Sin. He is one of many priests, who no longer accept some fundamental Catholic doctrines.

I am now very curious about the position of Father Richard Rohr regarding Original Sin.

If your opinions of doctrine are only that of doctrine then I do respect that as I think I said before. I wonder though if you ever questioned something, and found it hard to accept as a teaching that would come from Christ. I know we are told all comes from the holy spirit, and I haven’t studied the whole bible, ccc, or council of trent. I have attended church, lived as best a chrsitian as I can, and listened to church teaching, I just didn’t know there was so many rules before I came on CAF.

As a young student, I probably questioned a lot of teachings. Fortunately, Catholic doctrines were presented in a straight forward manner and as I look back, the doctrines flowed logically from basic truths like God is the Creator and we are the creatures. A high school class examined the early Church Councils and the Reformation from a doctrinal base, that is, we learned both the reasoning for a doctrine and against a doctrine. While a lot of that information is in the dark recesses of my memory bank, methods used in discerning what is true and what is not remained.

The one Catholic doctrine which was troubling so that I ignored it for almost all my life is the doctrine that our own human nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual world and the material world. When I landed on CAF, I was nailed big time for my misconception of human nature. I knew about Adam’s spiritual and material nature but could not correctly explain mine. A retired professor, a shade more stubborn than I am, overcame my mental block and now I can read CCC, 364-366 in amazement at God’s love for we creatures.

Regarding the comment: “I just didn’t know there was so many rules before I came on CAF.” When I learned “rules” we learned them as part of our love for God and our desire to be with Him in joy eternal. However, as I look at CAF posts, I think of the “rules” as being truths regarding pre-Fall and post-Fall Adam. For example, there would be a rule explaining why Adam was freely responsible for Original Sin. Perhaps CCC, 1730 can be viewed as that rule. ??
If I am off base about “rules”, let me know.

One other thing, I do think the rules about attending Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday and rules regarding marriage, etc., are for our benefit because they flow from how we express our union with God and what we need to do morally.