Cradle Catholic questioning if I belong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Busy_sleeper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part 2
1996 scientifically proven Eucharistic miracle.Buenos Aires

The Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires is an extraordinary sign attested to by science. Through it Jesus desires to arouse in us a lively faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He reminds us that His presence is real, and not symbolic. Only with the eyes of faith do we see Him under appearance of the consecrated bread and wine. We do not see Him with our bodily eyes, since He is present in His glorified humanity. In the Eucharist Jesus sees and loves us and desires to save us.
In collaboration with Ron Tesoriero, Mike Willesee, one of Australia’s best-known journalists (he converted to Catholicism after working on the documents of another Eucharistic miracle) wrote a book entitled Reason to Believe. In it they present documented facts of Eucharistic miracles and other signs calling people to faith in Christ who abides and teaches in the Catholic Church. They have also made a documentary film on the Eucharist—based largely on the scientific discoveries associated with the miraculous Host in Buenos Aires. Their aim was to give a clear presentation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject of the Eucharist. They screened the film in numerous Australian cities. The showing at Adelaide drew a crowd of two thousand viewers. During the commentary and question period that followed a visibly moved man stood up announcing that he was blind. Having learned that this was an exceptional film, he had very much wanted to see it. Just before the screening, he prayed fervently to Jesus for the grace to see the film. At once his sight was restored to him, but only for the thirty-minute duration of the film. Upon its conclusion, he again lost the ability to see. He confirmed this by describing in minute detail certain scenes of the film. It was an incredible event that moved those present to the core of their being.
Through such wondrous signs God calls souls to conversion. If Jesus causes the Host to become visible flesh and blood, a muscle that is responsible for the contraction of a human heart—a heart that suffers like that of someone who has been beaten severely about the chest, if He does such things, it is in order to arouse and quicken our faith in His real presence in the Eucharist. He thus enables us to see that Holy Mass is a re-presentation (i.e. a making present) of the entire drama of our salvation: Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. Jesus says to his disciples, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will not believe” (Jn 4: 48). There is no need to actively seek out wondrous signs. But if Jesus chooses to give them to us, then it behooves us to accept them with meekness and seek to understand what He desires to tell us by them. Thanks to these signs, many people have discovered faith in God—the One God in the Holy Trinity, who reveals His Son to us: Jesus Christ, who abides in the sacraments and teaches us through Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
 
Scientifically proven Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
Close-up of the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy
Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.
The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.
The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.
Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.
In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.
The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:
The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
 
For an extensive list of eucharistic miracles from the 3rd century to this century see

catholicdoors.com/misc/eucharisticmiracles.htm

YEAR

3 rd - 5 th Century SCETE, Egypt

6 th Century JORDAN/ARABIAN DESERT - St. Mary of Egypt, Egypt

7 th Century ROME, Italy (part 1)

7 th Century ROME, Italy (part 2)

720 A.D. VALENCIA, Spain (part 1) (The Holy Grail)

720 A.D. VALENCIA, Spain (part 2) (The Holy Grail)

750 A.D. LANCIANO, Italy (part 1)

750 A.D. LANCIANO, Italy (part 2)

1010 A.D. IVORRA, Spain (part 1)

1010 A.D. IVORRA, Spain (part 2)

1055 A.D. WEINGARTEN (part 1), Germany

1055 A.D. WEINGARTEN (part 2), Germany

11 th Century SAINT PETER DAMIAN, Italy

11 th Century TRANI, Italy

1171 A.D. FERRARA, Italy

1194 A.D. AUGSBURG, Germany

1125 A.D. BETTBRUNN, Germany

1203 A.D. BRUGES, Belgium

1216 A.D. BENNINGEN, Germany

1222-1465 A.D. MEERSSEN, Netherland

1225 A.D. SANTAREM, Portugal (Or 1247)

1227 A.D. RIMINI, Italy

1228 A.D. ALATRI, Italy

1230-1595 A.D. FLORENCE, Italy

1231 A.D. CARAVACA DE LA CRUZ, Spain

1239 A.D. DAROCA, Spain (part 1)

1239 A.D. DAROCA, Spain (part 2)

1240 A.D. ASSISI (Saint Clare), Italy

1247 A.D. SANTARÉM, Portugal (part 1)

1247 A.D. SANTARÉM, Portugal (part 2)

1251 A.D. SAINT JOHN OF THE ABBESSES, Spain

1254 A.D. DOUAI, France

1255 A.D. REGENBURG, Germany

1257 A.D. NEUVY SAINT SÉPULCRE, France

1264 A.D. BOLSENA, Italy (part 1)

1264 A.D. BOLSENA, Italy (part 2)

1273-1280 A.D. OFFIDA, Italy

1280 A.D. KRANENBURG, District of Kleve, Germany

1290 A.D. GLOTOWO, Poland

1290 A.D. PARIS, France (part 1)

1290 A.D. PARIS, France (part 2)

1294 A.D. GRUARO (Valvasone), Italy

1297 A.D. GERONA, Spain

1300 A.D. BREDA-NIERVAART, Netherland

1300 A.D. O’CEBREIRO, Spain

1310 A.D. FIECHT, Austria

1317 A.D. HERKENRODE-HASSELT, Belgium

1330 A.D. WALLDURN, Germany

1330 A.D. CASCIA, Italy

1331 A.D. BLANOT, France

1342 A.D. STIPHOUT, Netherland

1345 A.D. KRAKOW, Poland

1345 A.D. AMSTERDAM, Netherland (part 1)

1345 A.D. AMSTERDAM, Netherland (part 2)

1348 A.D. ALBORAYA-ALMACERA, Spain (part 1)

1348 A.D. ALBORAYA-ALMACERA, Spain (part 2)

1356 A.D. MACERATA, Italy

1370 A.D. BRUSSELS, Belgium

1370 A.D. CIMBALLA, Spain

1374 A.D. LUTTICH (Corpus Domini), Belgium

1374 A.D. MIDDLEBURG-LOVANIO, Belgium

1380 A.D. BOXTEL-HOOGSTRATEN, Netherland

1383 A.D. WILSNACK, Germany

1384 A.D. SEEFELD, Austria

1392 A.D. MONCADA, Spain

1399 A.D. POZNAN, Poland

1400 A.D. BOXMEER, Netherland

1405 A.D. BOIS-SEIGNEUR-ISAAC, Belgium (1405)

1411 A.D. WEITEN-RAXENDORF, Austria

1411 A.D. LUDBREG, Croatio

1411 A.D. LUDBREG, Croatio

1412 A.D. HERENTALS, Belgium

1412 A.D. BAGNO DI ROMAGNA, Italy

1417 A.D. ERDING, Germany

1420 A.D. GUADALUPE, Spain

1421 A.D. BERGEN, Netherland

1427 A.D. ZARAGOZA, Spain

1429 A.D. ALKMAAR, Netherland

1430 A.D. DIJON, France

1433 A.D. AVIGNON, France (part 1)

1433 A.D. AVIGNON, France (part 2)

1447 A.D. ETTISWIL, Switzerland

1453 A.D. TURIN, Italy (part 1)

1453 A.D. TURIN, Italy (part 2)

1461 A.D. LA ROCHELLE, France

1472 A.D. VOLTERRA, Italy

1533 A.D. MARSEILLE-EN-BEAUVAIS, France

1533 A.D. PONFERRADA, Spain

1535 A.D. ASTI, Italy

1560 A.D. MORROVALLE, Italy

1568 A.D. ALCOY, Spain

1570 A.D. VEROLI, Italy

1572 A.D. GORKUM-EL ESCORIAL, Spain

1597 A.D. ALCALA, Spain 1597

1604 A.D. MOGORO, Italy

1608 A.D. FAVERNEY, France

1610 A.D. ROME, Italy

1630 A.D. CANOSIO, Italy

1631 A.D. DRONERO, Italy

1631 A.D. SAN MAURO LA BRUCA, Italy

1640 A.D. TURIN, Italy

1643 A.D. PRESSAC, France

1649 A.D. ETEN, Peru

1656 A.D. CAVA DEI TIRRENI, Italy

1657 A.D. MONTSERRAT, Spain

1668 A.D. LES ULMES, France

1718 A.D. ASTI, Italy

1730 A.D. SIENNA, Italy

1732 A.D. SCALA, Italy

1750 A.D. SIENA, Italy

1772 A.D. PATIERNO (Naples), Italy

1822 A.D. BORDEAUX, France

1824 A.D. ONIL, Spain (part 1)

1824 A.D. ONIL, Spain (part 2)

1902 A.D. MORNE-ROUGE, Carribean Island of Martinique

1902 A.D. SAINT ANDRÉ DE LA RÉUNION, Island of La Réunion.

1906 A.D. TUMACO, Columbia

1907 A.D. SILLA, Spain

1948 A.D. ROSANO, Italy

2001 A.D. CHIRATTAKONAM, India
 
Regarding “inheriting a fortune,” I’m not complaining about it, I only think that as Christians we have all inherited the fortune and it is our responsibility to not squander it.
Not “all Christians.” There are many who say “Lord, Lord” but who will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven (that is to say, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ).
Truth and Reality DO change. The world use to be flat and the the sun use to revolve around the Earth. We use technology to come closer to the actual truth.
Neither truth nor reality changed. You can’t change reality simply by believing - or teaching - something that isn’t really true. Just because a majority of people think something is true, doesn’t make it really true.
 
The Catholic church requiring this of only Catholics is my point. Why, having my religion chosen for me by my parents, am I now required to attend the Mass, and those of another religion are not? Because “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” in the eyes of the Church is not helping me have confidence in the infallibility of the Church.
You were given a gift that others do not have. It is up to you to maintain the gift and keep it intact for your children to inherit after you, so that they too can get to go to Heaven some day.
 
The Church excuses those who are not fully bound to the Church out of consideration for the states of their souls. Were the Church to bind them in this matter, then they would be negatively affected by their lack of attendance, so the Church is kindly excusing them from the obligation.

You, however, have been given the wonderful gift of the Catholic Faith, and in gratitude, in justice, you remain under this obligation.

So say there is a “family” tradition that, at a certain age, you give your child the gift of a dog, that will never die and they can never get rid of or give away. They will have that dog till they die and based on how well they cared for and loved that dog, they go to heaven or not. Other families don’t have this tradition, they are only judged on how much they loved animals in general. My parents loved their dog and had no problem giving me this “gift.” And without understanding everything there is to know about caring for this dog I was happy to accept. Now, I love my dog, she is a great dog, but I wonder why I, having a dog, am obligated to keep it and then give my children one, so that they can be judged on the same thing. Why can’t we all be judged the same, for how much we love animals, or have a choice as to whether or not we want to be judged on how well we cared for our dog.
There are people out there who don’t like dogs, and prefer cats, why should they be force to get a dog.
Because the members of this family are blind, and the dog is a special guide dog who, by leading the members of your family to the places they need to go, allows you to live a normal life, instead of being trapped and lost. The dog does such an excellent job of this that the children never even realize that they have been blind from birth, nor that the dog is doing all these things for them.
 
The Church excuses those who are not fully bound to the Church out of consideration for the states of their souls. Were the Church to bind them in this matter, then they would be negatively affected by their lack of attendance, so the Church is kindly excusing them from the obligation.

You, however, have been given the wonderful gift of the Catholic Faith, and in gratitude, in justice, you remain under this obligation.
Yes you are correct.

**The Sunday Eucharist obligations,

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."110

2178 **This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.**112

** It is the place where all the faithful can be gathered together for the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist.** :

The Sunday obligation

2180** The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day**."118

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 **Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. **Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It’s an act of reverence to the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ Truly Present Physically Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Sacrafice of the Mass, where His incarnation, birth, life, Cruxifion, Ressurrection, Ascension and descent of His Holy Spirit are relived literally in the Consecration of the Eucharist.**
 
Because the members of this family are blind, and the dog is a special guide dog who, by leading the members of your family to the places they need to go, allows you to live a normal life, instead of being trapped and lost. The dog does such an excellent job of this that the children never even realize that they have been blind from birth, nor that the dog is doing all these things for them.
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church. And going back to my initial question
I was raised by 2 catholic parents in a small town. My husband was raised Lutheran in a farming community close to where we now live. This past fall he decided he wanted to go through RCIA and join the catholic church we have been attending for the past 7 years. I was thrilled! About a week before Easter he told me that his heart wasn’t fully committed and that he would not be joining on Easter. I was disappointed but understood that he would have conflicts with some of the beliefs, surprisingly only 2. We talked about his reasons for a few days and I actually agree with him, which has caused me a great deal of heartache the past couple weeks. I have talked with our priest, he sent me here and to talk with my parents, who he does not know. That was disappointed again. I posted this question to “Ask an Apologist” last week but did not get a response. I am here to get some help and answers. Would if be better for me to be become a really good Lutheran or remain a habitually sinful Catholic? Or because I have been given the “knowledge” of certain mortal sins will I still be considered “sinful” no matter what faith I join. Is there any hope of heaven for my soul?
So regardless of what the “mortal sins” are, what do I do? If I do not believe they are gravely mortal sins then I cannot make a full confession. And not being able to take communion, to continue to follow as many rules as I can, does not make me feel welcome in the Church. I feel like a Lutheran attending a Catholic mass.

The reasons WHY have been stated, over and over. I don’t accept that they are correct. Am I wrong? We have all agreed that if for God to decide not anyone else.

When scripture was written there was only one Christian church and the knowledge of the female cycle was still unknown. So show me where it says, in scripture, these things are so GRAVELY wrong. These are interpretations of humans. I get that the church believes that the Spirit is speaking through them. I believe ALL humans are capable of fault and that with new knowledge they may not have allowed the SPIRIT to speak through them, yet.

I am not trying to change the Church, I am trying to deal with not believing everything the Church believes. And I do not want to be a cafeteria Catholic. And now being bound by these gravely mortal sins, I cannot take communion. And will be committing further “mortal sins” if I choose to attend the Lutheran Church, because for some reason I will “always be a Catholic.”

I really don’t expect this discussion to continue, I understand that it is not going anywhere and that it is unlikely that someone here will change my conscience or heart. Thank you for putting in the effort. I will continue to look for answers elsewhere and in my prayers.
 
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church. And going back to my initial question

So regardless of what the “mortal sins” are, what do I do? If I do not believe they are gravely mortal sins then I cannot make a full confession. And not being able to take communion, to continue to follow as many rules as I can, does not make me feel welcome in the Church. I feel like a Lutheran attending a Catholic mass.

The reasons WHY have been stated, over and over. I don’t accept that they are correct. Am I wrong? We have all agreed that if for God to decide not anyone else.

When scripture was written there was only one Christian church and the knowledge of the female cycle was still unknown. So show me where it says, in scripture, these things are so GRAVELY wrong. These are interpretations of humans. I get that the church believes that the Spirit is speaking through them. I believe ALL humans are capable of fault and that with new knowledge they may not have allowed the SPIRIT to speak through them, yet.

I am not trying to change the Church, I am trying to deal with not believing everything the Church believes. And I do not want to be a cafeteria Catholic.
What is important is not what one understands or feels a belief of; what is important is what a person *wills. *I may really really really want to eat the chocolate cake; I may feel a lack on understanding as to why I can’t eat it now and skip dinner later, but what really makes a difference is what I *decide and do, *which is the will.

So to avoid being a cafeteria Catholic, one needs to accept the *authority *of the Church. It doesn’t mean that you have to understand or have a certain feeling of belief about each and every teaching, just an acceptance that if the Church teaches it, it must be right.

And then one must *act *on that movement of the will, to bring one’s actions in line with that acceptance of the truth of the Church’s teaching. One part of that is to examine one’s actions to see if they are in line with Church teaching, another is to consider one’s attitude: what one says and thinks. And the goal is to bring all those things in line with Church teaching.

And the most important thing to do is to pray. Pray morning prayers and evening prayer (latter includes examination of conscience), *and the Rosary. *When I first returned to the Church, I went through a period of praying only the Sorrowful Mysteriesl. Reading the parts in the Bjble related to the mysteries, and gently guiding themind back onto the mystery when one’s attention has wandered are very helpful.

Thank God for every thing that happens, and do that frequently during the day. And pray for help and protection whenever the thoughts which lead to the wrong attitude, the attitude which you have decided against. And watch what you let into your mind through reading, conversation, etc.

There are lots of other aspects to the spiritual life, but this is what this random layperson on the internet would recommend, based on my own experience.
And now being bound by these gravely mortal sins, I cannot take communion. And will be committing further “mortal sins” if I choose to attend the Lutheran Church, because for some reason I will “always be a Catholic.”
Whenever I have done the above, any problems have been resolved. Do not worry about the future, just think about what good you can do today.
I really don’t expect this discussion to continue, I understand that it is not going anywhere and that it is unlikely that someone here will change my conscience or heart. Thank you for putting in the effort. I will continue to look for answers elsewhere and in my prayers.
 
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church.
The Church received authority from Jesus when Jesus said to Peter (our first Roman Catholic Pope) "What you (thou, Peter, only him and his successors - not the whole bunch of everybody who happens to be reading that verse) - What you bind on earth I bind in Heaven (any rule you make on earth, if people break it then not only do they get excommunicated from Peter’s Church, they also don’t get to go to Heaven, either); what you loose on earth I will loose in Heaven (meaning, if Peter says, “you can eat whatever kind of meat you want, and it doesn’t have to be kosher” - for example - then Jesus takes that rule away in Heaven as well, and people no longer go to Hell for eating non-kosher meats).
So regardless of what the “mortal sins” are, what do I do? If I do not believe they are gravely mortal sins then I cannot make a full confession.
Obviously, at some level, you do believe it, or else this wouldn’t bother you at all; you would simply not confess it, and not worry about it.

So when you say you “don’t believe it,” what do you really mean by that? Are you referring to a feeling you have, or don’t have, about it? Feelings aren’t required for belief.

Is it simply that you are attached to this habit, and don’t want to break it for reasons having nothing to do with whether or not it’s true that it’s wrong to do?
When scripture was written there was only one Christian church and the knowledge of the female cycle was still unknown.
That Church was the Roman Catholic Church, given to Peter, our first Pope, by Jesus, who is God our Creator. Keep in mind that the rest of the churches that now exist were not given by Jesus; they were self-invented, and have no ancestry that connects them in any way to Jesus. They may be about Jesus, but they were not started by Him, nor by anyone associated with Him.
So show me where it says, in scripture, these things are so GRAVELY wrong.
I think someone has already brought up the story of Onan, which is definitely Scriptural, and detailed enough to show us that this kind of behaviour is very wrong in the eyes of God. If Onan being struck dead on the spot by God isn’t enough, then I don’t know how much more clear it has to be than that. How many "Onan"s do there need to be in the Bible, before the point is made that God hates this kind of thing? Do you and your husband need to actually get struck dead on the spot, yourselves, before you can believe it? Or will you be teachable, and be warned by the Bible story, and by the teachings of the Church?
 
.

It may be, he wants you to remain a Lutheran, for that is where he’ll feed you best.

On the other hand, he may be calling you to come into the Catholic Church, for this is where He wants you.

Jim
Roman Catholic.church.teaching.under The.Guidance of Jesus Christ;

“The Holy Spirit will NEVER lead someone to leave the Catholic Church.”

God.would never lead someone from the FULL Truth,.to a partial.truth. The Lutheran Church has.errors completely incompatible with the Church guided by.the.True Presence of Jesus Christ Himself.
 
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church. And going back to my initial question

So regardless of what the “mortal sins” are, what do I do? If I do not believe they are gravely mortal sins then I cannot make a full confession. And not being able to take communion, to continue to follow as many rules as I can, does not make me feel welcome in the Church. I feel like a Lutheran attending a Catholic mass.

The reasons WHY have been stated, over and over. I don’t accept that they are correct. Am I wrong? We have all agreed that if for God to decide not anyone else.

When scripture was written there was only one Christian church and the knowledge of the female cycle was still unknown. So show me where it says, in scripture, these things are so GRAVELY wrong. These are interpretations of humans. I get that the church believes that the Spirit is speaking through them. I believe ALL humans are capable of fault and that with new knowledge they may not have allowed the SPIRIT to speak through them, yet.

I am not trying to change the Church, I am trying to deal with not believing everything the Church believes. And I do not want to be a cafeteria Catholic. And now being bound by these gravely mortal sins, I cannot take communion. And will be committing further “mortal sins” if I choose to attend the Lutheran Church, because for some reason I will “always be a Catholic.”

I really don’t expect this discussion to continue, I understand that it is not going anywhere and that it is unlikely that someone here will change my conscience or heart. Thank you for putting in the effort. I will continue to look for answers elsewhere and in my prayers.
Jesus inspired.the.whole bible to human writers. He.spoke to the apostles.post Pentecost.
Can you not see.He.is.authoritively behind the.RC Church guiding every doctrine on morality.

Why not.stop the carnal sin of natural contraception
And.go to mass on sunday.

You CAN still go to confession and confess ignoring your emotions, God will.forgive you.

The only sin that will never be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Unrepentance to the end.
 
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church. And going back to my initial question

So regardless of what the “mortal sins” are, what do I do? If I do not believe they are gravely mortal sins then I cannot make a full confession. And not being able to take communion, to continue to follow as many rules as I can, does not make me feel welcome in the Church. I feel like a Lutheran attending a Catholic mass.

The reasons WHY have been stated, over and over. I don’t accept that they are correct. Am I wrong? We have all agreed that if for God to decide not anyone else.

When scripture was written there was only one Christian church and the knowledge of the female cycle was still unknown. So show me where it says, in scripture, these things are so GRAVELY wrong. These are interpretations of humans. I get that the church believes that the Spirit is speaking through them. I believe ALL humans are capable of fault and that with new knowledge they may not have allowed the SPIRIT to speak through them, yet.

I am not trying to change the Church, I am trying to deal with not believing everything the Church believes. And I do not want to be a cafeteria Catholic. And now being bound by these gravely mortal sins, I cannot take communion. And will be committing further “mortal sins” if I choose to attend the Lutheran Church, because for some reason I will “always be a Catholic.”

I really don’t expect this discussion to continue, I understand that it is not going anywhere and that it is unlikely that someone here will change my conscience or heart. Thank you for putting in the effort. I will continue to look for answers elsewhere and in my prayers.
Good Evening Busy Sleeper:

The practice that you and your husband are doing is not a reliable means of contraception and it is well known that you can still get pregnant when he applies the practice you described. You can ask your GYN or Family Practitioner and verify what I am telling you. Also, you are not doing it with the intent of contraception. And since you are not practicing contraception by doing so, you are not committing a sin even under the rather descriptive and legalistic approach to sexuality of our church. I don’t feel that you have nothing to confess with regard to this act.

As for your misgivings about the infallibility of the church, well that doesn’t make you a sinner. It makes you a critical thinker. Any person or institution that presents themselves as being an infallible agent of God should reasonably expect a high level of scrutiny. And if what is professed is in fact true, the scrutiny should be welcomed. You should scrutinize away and not consider it a sin. If there is a God, then He or She gave you a brain to use, so use it without fear.

My advice would be to stop fretting over all this.

All the best,
Gary
 
Good Evening Busy Sleeper:

The practice that you and your husband are doing is not a reliable means of contraception and it is well known that you can still get pregnant when he applies the practice you described. You can ask your GYN or Family Practitioner and verify what I am telling you. Also, you are not doing it with the intent of contraception. And since you are not practicing contraception by doing so, you are not committing a sin even under the rather descriptive and legalistic approach to sexuality of our church. I don’t feel that you have nothing to confess with regard to this act.

As for your misgivings about the infallibility of the church, well that doesn’t make you a sinner. It makes you a critical thinker. Any person or institution that presents themselves as being an infallible agent of God should reasonably expect a high level of scrutiny. And if what is professed is in fact true, the scrutiny should be welcomed. You should scrutinize away and not consider it a sin. If there is a God, then He or She gave you a brain to use, so use it without fear.

My advice would be to stop fretting over all this.

All the best,
Gary
Gary you are wrong, and making up your own rules again.
That is not Catholic teaching, it is not biblical, it is not God’s natural law.

Blessed Pope John Paul II put his Apostolic Authority as Christ’s representative on earth, on the Catechism of 1992, which is STILL being reiterated year after year for the faithful as it is;

ANY act to prevent conception, is an act of contraception and intrisically evil.

Also; condoms used are not foolproof, are not a “reliable means of contraception”, conception is still possible, yet they are an attempt to block conception and render the act lustful carnality only for self gratification, rendering what should be a procreative union between spouses into a carnal act and mortal sin.

Naturally pulling out of the act of intercourse to prevent sperm filling ones wife is the exact same because it deliberately blocks sperm from entering ones spouse and is a deliberate act of contraception

God’s natural law.

Also;
What of catholics, who deny, renounce, and teach against Roman Catholic Teaching guided by Jesus Christ Himself Truly Present in the Eucharist?

Automatic excommunication, which is only removable by confession , otherwise rendering a person not able to receive the sacraments.

Some excommunications, however, are automatic (effective at the moment the act is committed) and without the intervention of the Church. Catholics are automatically excommunicated for committing these offenses:

Procuring of abortion

Apostasy: The total rejection of the Christian faith

Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Schism: The rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church
.

Desecration of sacred species (Holy Communion)

Physical attack on the pope

Sacramental absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments

Unauthorized episcopal (bishop) consecration

Direct violation of confessional seal by confessor

Who can remove the excommunication?

The local bishop has the authority to remove most excommunications, but many bishops delegate this power to all their parish priests when it involves a penitent confessing the mortal sin of abortion. This way, the person going to confession can simultaneously have the sin absolved and the excommunication lifted. This is to make it easier for people to go to confession and reconcile themselves with God and the Church, especially after a very emotional, personal, and serious matter, such as abortion.

Some excommunications, however, are so serious that only the pope or his delegate can remove the penalty. For example, if someone desecrates (shows irreverence to) the Holy Eucharist, only the pope can remove that excommunication. Likewise, if a priest attempts to absolve someone guilty of breaking the Sixth or Ninth Commandment with whom he himself participated in that sexual sin, his excommunication is automatic and reserved to Rome. So, too, a bishop who ordains a priest to the order of bishop without prior orders from the pope is automatically excommunicated, and only the pope can remove that excommunication, which applies equally to the ordaining bishop and the bishop being ordained.

If you believe God can communicate to the world and inspire His early church with His infallible teachings, and to write His infallible world,
You completely fail to see that God grants that same infallibility and authority to His chosen apostles of today, His priests, bishops, Popes, and since Jesus throughout history to the One True Church with the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Well said, and I agree. I will use this example in the future, I like it. So I guess in my situation I am accually having trouble with is the infallibility of the Church.
Look at all the christian churches with their different changing rules,
And look.at the Roman Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself with His True Presence teaching His exact given teachings for 2015yrs.

**Busy sleeper your main concern is Catholic Church being given the charism of infallibility by Jesus.
Jesus had the gift of Infallibility, He gave His charism of infallibility to Peter, the apostles, the early church, to human writers to write the Infallible word of God, and has continued this charism in the centuries sincein the True Church He founded with His True Presence !
If Jesus could give tongues, miracles, visions, infallibility etc to the apostles and early church, do you not think He would CONTINUE charisms He sees as essential for us? Epecially infallibility?

The answer is yes,**

Please read these;
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II
 
I think someone has already brought up the story of Onan, which is definitely Scriptural, and detailed enough to show us that this kind of behaviour is very wrong in the eyes of God. If Onan being struck dead on the spot by God isn’t enough, then I don’t know how much more clear it has to be than that. How many "Onan"s do there need to be in the Bible, before the point is made that God hates this kind of thing? Do you and your husband need to actually get struck dead on the spot, yourselves, before you can believe it? Or will you be teachable, and be warned by the Bible story, and by the teachings of the Church?
I believe the context in this story was that Onan was trying to avoid getting his dead brother’s wife pregnant. The intent in the current situation is not birth control, and of course modern humans know that this isn’t a method of birth control in the first place. As for biblical law, it is also required to stone disobedient children to death and a capital crime punishable by death to work on the Sabbath, and abomination in the eyes of God to eat shellfish and list goes on. I often hear people respond to this by saying Jesus changed all of this, but what He actually said was:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:17-20.

As for your references to Peter binding and loosing, the only thing I can recall him “loosing” was the law of circumcision with regard to Paul’s non-Jewish congregations, and this was only after Paul had appealed to him as “Bishop of Rome” and James as “Bishop of all Bishops” a number of times on the matter.

In this case as in many cases with regard to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, you have to apply some common sense and understand a little more about who Jesus was and who recorded His teachings. You also have to apply 21st century human knowledge to practical matters such as sexuality and certainly - most especially the Old Testament. Simply put, the reference doesn’t apply here. If for no other reason, because we know a little more about human physiology and reproduction these days than the authors of Onan did, and secondly because means of birth control that are actually effective are available today, which means that intent is also missing.

All the best,
Gary
 
Gary you are wrong, and making up your own rules again.
That is not Catholic teaching, it is not biblical, it is not God’s natural law.

Blessed Pope John Paul II put his Apostolic Authority as Christ’s representative on earth, on the Catechism of 1992, which is STILL being reiterated year after year for the faithful as it is;

ANY act to prevent conception, is an act of contraception and intrisically evil.

Also; condoms used are not foolproof, are not a “reliable means of contraception”, conception is still possible, yet they are an attempt to block conception and render the act lustful carnality only for self gratification, rendering what should be a procreative union between spouses into a carnal act and mortal sin.

Naturally pulling out of the act of intercourse to prevent sperm filling ones wife is the exact same because it deliberately blocks sperm from entering ones spouse and is a deliberate act of contraception

God’s natural law.

Also;
What of catholics, who deny, renounce, and teach against Roman Catholic Teaching guided by Jesus Christ Himself Truly Present in the Eucharist?

Automatic excommunication, which is only removable by confession , otherwise rendering a person not able to receive the sacraments.

Some excommunications, however, are automatic (effective at the moment the act is committed) and without the intervention of the Church. Catholics are automatically excommunicated for committing these offenses:

Procuring of abortion

Apostasy: The total rejection of the Christian faith

Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

Schism: The rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church.

Desecration of sacred species (Holy Communion)

Physical attack on the pope

Sacramental absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments

Unauthorized episcopal (bishop) consecration

Direct violation of confessional seal by confessor

Who can remove the excommunication?

The local bishop has the authority to remove most excommunications, but many bishops delegate this power to all their parish priests when it involves a penitent confessing the mortal sin of abortion. This way, the person going to confession can simultaneously have the sin absolved and the excommunication lifted. This is to make it easier for people to go to confession and reconcile themselves with God and the Church, especially after a very emotional, personal, and serious matter, such as abortion.

Some excommunications, however, are so serious that only the pope or his delegate can remove the penalty. For example, if someone desecrates (shows irreverence to) the Holy Eucharist, only the pope can remove that excommunication. Likewise, if a priest attempts to absolve someone guilty of breaking the Sixth or Ninth Commandment with whom he himself participated in that sexual sin, his excommunication is automatic and reserved to Rome. So, too, a bishop who ordains a priest to the order of bishop without prior orders from the pope is automatically excommunicated, and only the pope can remove that excommunication, which applies equally to the ordaining bishop and the bishop being ordained.

If you believe God can communicate to the world and inspire His early church with His infallible teachings, and to write His infallible world,
You completely fail to see that God grants that same infallibility and authority to His chosen apostles of today, His priests, bishops, Popes, and since Jesus throughout history to the One True Church with the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Answered you in my last post. There is absolutely no avoidance of pregnancy being practiced here. No offense intended, but if you would, I would ask that you do some modern day reading before you get back to me on the matter.

All the best,
Gary
 
Answered you in my last post. There is absolutely no avoidance of pregnancy being practiced here. No offense intended, but if you would, I would ask that you do some modern day reading before you get back to me on the matter.

All the best,
Gary
The Pope Francis has recently said, NFP only thing permitted.

The Catechism is the CURRENT basis for all catholic doctrine, it is on the vatican’s website for this reason, the catechism has NOT been replaced with another. It was rereleased last year with the language being made more accessible for young adults. Is 2014 modern enough a reading for you? The Pope John Paul II put his Apostolic Authority on it.
Could conception be blocked by this? Yes.
Any action blocking conception is intrinsically evil.
No difference from condoms. They still don’t 100% block conception.

Gary, you are not a practicing catholic, you are not loyal to the Pope or catholic.faith, you are making up your own rules, as I stated in another post, going against the Pope and catholic doctrines brings automatic excommunication.

Automatic excommunication from;
Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Schism: The rejection of the authority and jurisdiction of the pope as head of the Church.

Are you the Roman Catholic Pope, are you a priest, theologian, capable of telling us doctrines you decide for us based on your research, verses to 2015 years of Catholic Teaching within the True Church with the True Presence of Our Lord?

You are making up your own faith and your own doctrines.
 
I will admit to being a bit perplexed that one would consider leaving the one true faith because:
  1. Having her husband ejaculate in her vagina is messy
  2. They don’t think they should have to go to church every Sunday
Unfortunately moving to a denomination where this is not a problem is not really a solution as a cradle Catholic cannot use the excuse of “invincible ignorance” They know the truth and have chosen to reject it. This is far different than one raise in another faith and was never exposed to the truth in the first place
 
I

In this case as in many cases with regard to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, you have to apply some common sense and understand a little more about who Jesus was and who recorded His teachings. You also have to apply 21st century human knowledge to practical matters such as sexuality and certainly - most especially the Old Testament. Simply put, the reference doesn’t apply here. If for no other reason, because we know a little more about human physiology and reproduction these days than the authors of Onan did, and secondly because means of birth control that are actually effective are available today, which means that intent is also missing.

All the best,
Gary
Actually as a Catholic I don’t have to accept anybody’s version of common sense
. I don’t have to try to figure things out , the Church has already done that for me. Unlike our separated brethren Catholics don’t have to engage in endless verse wars about what the sin of Onan was or what Jesus really meant when he was talking to Peter.

Regardless of ones denomination the idea that the Truth changes as man gets “smarter” is specious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top