What do you think? If a farmer has a hundred beasts and one goes missing won’t he go and find it? Is 1% too low?
That is one of my favorite parables!
There seems to be confusion in Argentinia, but no more than usual in Alberta. If one is in Mortal sin one should not present themselves for communion.
hopefully some day!
I doubt mosst Quebecers would enven care what the chuch is saying to them. QUebec was a Catholic bastion decades ago but pretty much in name only now. My guess is that just as many actual church going Catholics in Alberta as in Quebec
Why do you believe all sins of objective grave matter (recognisable by “the eyes”) by that reason alone must be actual “mortal sins” (which cannot be recognised by the eyes)?
Which begs the question…we know what tribunals are deciding, but what are accompanying priests deciding (in respect of irregulars)? Are they deciding anything about the validity of the first marriage? I doubt it. After all, should the partner of an irregular die, could the remaining partner (the one previously married), ever be permitted to remarry in the Church without a declaration of annulment of their original (first) marriage from a tribunal? I doubt it.
CAF was plagued with these questions 5 months ago, I thought we were over them.
Perhaps we are past them (as opposed to “over” them), but there were no satisfactory answers (explanation of the departure from prior practice requiring a commitment (or attempt) to live as brother and sister), just as there is no apparent means of reconciling the differing positions of groups of bishops as outlined on this thread.
In such circumstances, it is always best (and most prudent) to follow what the Church has taught consistently on the subjects of Matrimony and the Eucharist. Anything else would be (in my opinion, but I’m not the only one who thinks this way) making a dangerous gamble on one’s chances of salvation.
It seems to me the same would hold true in those case where a Marriage Tribunal has issued a formal Decree of Nullity.
That is a somewhat more dicey matter.
I would suggest, unless one has formed a certain conscience after much wise counsel and soul searching, that we do not follow our own doubtful lay theological lights as to what “doctrinal truth” is in complicated situations but simply act within the limits of obedience set out by our local Ordinary or PP.
It really is. It has always seemed to me that a person is ultimately responsible for his/her own salvation, and that this is the reason for the teaching concerning the primacy of conscience.That is a somewhat more dicey matter.
Even without reading the quotation I would guess the “living person” St. Thomas was referring to was Christ.
Ginny I will not be responding to your comments in my regard due to the quality of the attitude and Catechesis of your recent posts as demonstrated here:
It is really not much more complicated than “Go and sin no more.”
Pope Saint John Paul II addressed the underlying matter very well when he wrote, after the excommunication of Marcel Lefebvre and the others
Who has “broken the ecclesial bond” with the pope? Don’t you think we are obedient to the pope only because we are loyal to Christ? Feel free to do as you please but I know MY faith in the church rests on my conviction that it is the body OF CHRIST, not the other way around. If I did not have my personal faith in Jesus, I wouldn’t care two cents what the Catholic Church had to say on any matter under the sun.
That’s Ok (and much appreciated!
) For my part, I will keep responding to anything anyone says that I think needs responding for the sake of readers.