joeybaggz #49–closest link:
joeybaggz:
Error in judgment does not mean the same as erring for the sake of sensibilities.
What you’ve cited is the wrong teaching of the Church based on what was known…yet, the Church does not teach blanket suicide (meaning, if some decides to kill him/herself because they lost a loved one, pet, job, wealth, security, health…); moral judgment still goes.
Yes, exactly what I was talking about. The teaching was reevaluated and brought more in line with modern/current understanding of mental capability vis- a-vis those conditions necessary for the commission of mortal sin. Period. Nothing to do with your last assertion about blanket acceptance.
Hi, Joey!
(…had to cut and paste: inserting responses makes all text disappear when depressing the “Quote” icon.)
Yet, you are arguing diminished mental capacity vs determination to sin as the same and congruent conditions.
Not every who commit suicide does so out of diminished capacity; conversely, not everyone who engages in adultery, multiple marriages, multiple families, homosexuality, and other explicit forms of unrighteousness do so our of diminished capacity.
Pretending that sin is not sin does not exculpate the sinner.
Reducing adultery to ‘well, Jesus didn’t really want people to be shun,’ well that’s just not Biblical… He actually told people to their faces, ‘depart from Me evil doers.’ (St. Matthew 7:21-23)
Like the adulteress and the Good Thief???
What you, and it seems the Pope, miss is the factor that these both had a life-changing experience and they professed Fellowship with Christ–they did not simply take the stance that their sin was not a sin.
Really? The Catholic Church Taught that slavery was ok?.. self-excommunicated if they engaged in slavery?
Catholic churches in the South were quiet about slavery for political purposes (and possible congregational safety concerns). Jesus didn’t question slavery as such, going to far as to expound on the duty of masters and slaves. Yes, there are instances in Scripture that are interpreted as anti-slavery, but silence on a issue is tantamount to acceptance. Something that was interpreted in some places as teaching.
I’ve done no research on Catholic parishes in the US during slavery; yet, if this were so as you propose, we can only see the exact thing happening right now: The Magisterium of the Church proposes that the Doctrine be fulfilled/upheld: anyone who owns slaves or is engaged in slavery must cease, return the people to their rightful places, return their possessions, and repent–otherwise they have self-excommunicated themselves from the Catholic Church.
Replace slavery with adultery and homosexuality and we have the exact same thing happening, local Bishops rejecting the Church’s Teaching (Doctrinal Teaching) on sin/unrighteousness/slavery/adultery/homosexuality… but we also have the bigger problem of the Vatican playing possum or monkey see, hear, speak no evil.
Schism is not in the future but actually taking place!
Yet, the Church cannot Teach that unrighteousness is ok because more people are engaged in it…
Sin City is not a stop between Heaven and earth; it’s hollowood’s spirituality.
I feel you… but I cannot agree with such understanding… did you know that there are people going on about universalism (everyone regardless of their rejection of God or unrighteousness will be eternally saved–some even argue that Satan too will gain salvation)… freewill that must respond to God’s Call and Grace (Deuteronomy 30:19).
As for the Body and Blood… while it is true that Jesus wants all to Receive Him, it is not true that all want and can in deed Receive Him:
Who’s talking about all???
Didn’t you claim that Jesus wants everyone to Received the Holy Eucharist?
So yeah, God wants all to be Saved and Receive His Body and Blood… but no, it is not a “right” that man can claim!
No, it is not a right, it is a gift that is offered to all who seek Jesus in a spirit of righteousness. But are those who are in irregular situations who now understand and desire to return to the Lord’s table and his Bride the Church, beyond any possibility of that experience?? Because somehow they are denied forgiveness because of some Church teaching. A teaching that Jesus gave Peter the ability to loose and bind??
Shalom
What you are suggesting is that those who took vows do not have to live up to them; that they can actually set them asunder and start a new life because of an epiphany that sin is sin–yet, not my sin.
Personally I’ve known a few people living together who refuse to get married; the female, usually the more dependent upon affiliation with the Faith, receives Communion or suffers because she knows she cannot–yet, they refuse to enter into a Sacramental Union.
As far as I know, most people who get married in the Catholic Church go through a process of catechizes… do they go blind into the Obligation of the Sacrament?
Now these same people that you quote as being in “irregular situations” (which soon will be used for gender fluidity and everything else under the dome) awake to the fact that they must get right by God… yet they refuse to heed Jesus that clearly state that those who leave their Sacramental Marriage and unite with others commit adultery; give them the opportunity to not commit adultery, how many are willing to live as brother and sister or in the case of homosexuals abstain from sexual relations?
…isn’t it better to seek the high road where sin is not really sin because of diminished capacity or irregular situations; Pontius Pilate thought so!
Maran atha!
Angel
