I observe Jesus forgave people without Jesus asking or them expressing any firm purpose.
I observe this as well, but I saw no reason to mention this in the context of this thread, and I don’t understand why you are mentioning this if it is merely an observation. What conclusion are you trying to draw from this observation?
Again, “
Christ never asked men to confess their sins to Him as He could read their hearts. He could see both their sins and their sorrow. However, He rarely gives the power of reading hearts to priests.” To quote
paragraph 388 of the same Baltimore Catechism, “Contrition is a sincere sorrow for having offended God… with a firm purpose of sinning no more.” Jesus could clearly see the sorrow expressed in the people who are described in the Gospels; Jesus knew if this sorrow was being feigned or not. Priests do not have the ability to read hearts (men like St. “Padre” Pio are exceptions); therefore, the Church has always asked that a worthy confession consist of a “firm purpose of not sinning again”.
You do not believe in passive adultery versus active adultery?
Jesus did.
We’re getting into semantics here. Are you referring to Matt 5:32 again? As I explained in an earlier discussion we had, I agree that there’s obviously a difference between the man who left his wife and engages in an adulterous relationship, and the wife he left behind, who without engaging in any extramarital sexual activity, now “bears the taint and the disqualifications of the adulteress” To
quote this interpretation (with my original thoughts from that discussion bolded and italicized) of Matt 5:32 again for those that haven’t seen it:
How does a man by divorcing his wife make her an adulteress?
“Not by forcing her into sexual congress with other men. The point is that she cannot marry- at least not in righteousness- inasmuch as and as long as the man who has known her carnally as her true husband is still alive. Thus she bears the taint and the disqualifications of the adulteress in virtue of a decision made not by her but by her husband, and it is this injustice that Jesus condemns. Note that Jesus is not inveighing against Judaic restrictions against divorcées; nowhere does He suggest that a more equitable or godly dispensation would permit a divorcée to remarry. The weight of the opprobrium falls on the man who makes his wife subject to such hardships.”
Given this analysis, I don’t see how Matt. 5:32 can be used to say that an abandoned wife, who civilly remarried, is somehow allowed to receive Communion while actively committing adultery without the resolve or intention to stop.
And yet exceptions existed for 100s of years up until the time of Jesus.
It doesn’t say “thou shall not also Communicate”
Exceptions obviously seem to exist to “You shall not kill.”
Wandile made a good point about this, that is, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, including those aspects of it which were allowed by Moses because of the Israelites “hardness of hearts”. And in addition to that, even if we do grant that exceptions existed then, that was the Old Law. We are under the New Law. The Magisterium, which resulted from the implementation of the New Law, does effectively say that the divorced and civilly remarried who do not commit themselves to continence and continue to live
more uxorio may not receive Holy Communion.
And I’m sorry, but I’m not getting dragged back into your comparison between the 5th and 6th commandments. I believe posters (such as Tantum Ergo and others) adequately and correctly responded to your claims in that earlier thread that was closed in the other sub-forum.
Correct, but there may be tolerable technical adultery when it comes to Communion
I agree, but I don’t believe that AL opens any new doors (as does Cardinal Muller and several other prelates) besides the cases that were called for prior to 2016. If you believe there are further “tolerable” situations that exist after AL’s promulgation, I wouldn’t mind seeing you elaborate.
Of course. Just like killing, taking the property of another, being intoxicated etc etc.
So we agree here. I hope then, you would also agree that we as Catholic Christians are to avoid all evil, including venial sins, and are commanded by Jesus to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) Of course, we can’t attain perfection on our own. We need our Lord’s grace in our lives, and there is no obstacle impossible for us to overcome when we rely on our Lord.
“one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments”.
.It depends if the “choosing” is direct or indirect.
If a choice is indirectly made, this implies coercion, or that perhaps one’s mind has been manipulated by drugs or other substances, no? I’m not referring to these cases.
And to bring back everything full circle to the statement from the Maltese bishops, my question still stands from earlier:
Look at the bolded part of the quote.
I ask honestly, not facetiously, what holds anyone back from taking the bolded portion out and replacing it with another group? “A person living in multiple, polygamous relationships” for example? “A person cohabiting with a long-time partner”, for another example?
We are, after all, only as old or young as we feel. (who knows, the Pope might even like the sound of that - given the preeminence of what we feel these days) You sound 30!
.
