V
Vadne
Guest
Oh, I’ve read it. It was a painful experience in verbiage. And it is ambiguous…I would argue deliberately so.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Give me one example of it being “ambiguous”.Vadne said:
Last edited:
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
It is a fine line between a saint and a heretic, and sometimes just a decade’s or a century’s difference. Pick your side carefully.
Last edited:
P
pianistclare
Guest
No. Just no.
This is a dangerous thing that people are proposing, and totally unjust.
It will not end well.
I pray that people will change their hearts. SOON.
This is a dangerous thing that people are proposing, and totally unjust.
It will not end well.
I pray that people will change their hearts. SOON.
Last edited:
P
pianistclare
Guest
Well stated. Thank you!
Last edited:
O
oppositeman13
Guest
all I care about is the bottom line - as far as I am concerned there is no communion for the remarried, unless living as brother and sister. I believe it’s implementation is contrary to official teaching. I see bad fruit and I don’t like it. I don’t care what someone says but I do care about what is done and what is being done here I don’t support. No amount of “word gymnastics” with the truth can change it. I will never change my mind. People embrace the new because they could never accept the old - in this case official catholic teaching. As far as I can tell there are a lot of people who call themselves catholic that have never embraced the unchanging teachings of catholicism.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
My mind is skipping a beat here, but I am pretty sure there is a name for this type of fallacy. It would be like dismissing Amoris Laetitia because, for example, Nancy Pelosi endorsed it. I think it would be better to say that a person may not carry weight.
In this case, I do agree in principle that it is not supported as much as some have suggested, seeing the actual names and lack of credentials. Remember, a minority of the 62 were really priest in a world of 410,000 priests.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
So can anyone else find anywhere the list of exactly who signed this? The Register article mentions a few but I can’t seem to find a complete list
Last edited:
O
oppositeman13
Guest
SIGNATORIES – Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis - I read that appropriate people ie scholars, theologians, clergy etc can sign the document by contacting them.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
But, you do realize that it is Catholic teaching that manifest grave sin demands three distinguishable parameters to merit personal culpability to be deemed mortal to one’s soul; e.g. An individual remarried not annulled needs to realize and accept that what he/she is doing is a grave matter, has full awareness and deliberate intent to ensure personal accountability. I assure you there are many, many remarried couples that do not have proper disposition and knowledge of their current relationship as committing adultery. To deny Holy Communion to someone without determining personal culpability is easily more scandalizing than someone that may be in a state of mortal sin communing. And, to simply assume that every rational and reasonable soul should realize that that situation is a grave matter, among having awareness and intent, IS judging them. So, just because there are grey situations, doesn’t intrinsically mean that AL is grey and ambiguous, and those four Cardinals should understand that.oppositeman13 said:
Last edited:
O
oppositeman13
Guest
only God determines personal culpability. With God there is no such thing as “gray area” - He does not mix the white of truth with the black of sin. No amount of “word gymnastics”, twisting, turning, and flipping the truth can change it. All this is nothing new - 4 times our church have upheld that the remarried cannot receive communion unless they change their situation. Our church has condemned situational ethics for a long time. God determines truth and we can either accept what He has told us in scripture, which is reflected in official catholic teachings, or not. The pope or no one can change official teaching or implement changes contrary to catholic teaching. We need to stop looking for ways of changing what we have a hard time accepting in our hearts because it makes us feel better about ourselves and makes us more acceptable to the world. The world has to change - not catholicism. We will be hated by the world by loved by God for standing firm in our beliefs that catholicism is Jesus’ church and like He we are never ever to change anything.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I refer you to the Catholic Catechism:oppositeman13 said:
"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” - 1857
“Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” - 1859
“Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.” - 1860
Those remarried not annulled are not to be excluded from unintentional ignorance!
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
No. The difference between saint and heretic is not at all a ‘fine line’.FollowChrist34 said:
Nor is it a matter of time passing. A saint is a saint, a heretic is a heretic and the difference is quite clear, whatever mistaken or outright false claims people may make.
Last edited:
O
oppositeman13
Guest
God does not recognize ignorance as acceptable. We are to understand fully what we profess to believe and to understand completely what we are to accept by calling ourselves catholic - doing otherwise is a sad thing indeed but no excuse. Any priest will tell you this is true. If they are ignorant then a priest can educate them and explain that they cannot live in adultery and expect to make it to heaven.
Last edited:
1
1neophyte
Guest
I would submit that there is not a single solitary person in this situation who fits this criteria. I don’t think that ANY of the many, many divorced and remarried people you speak of fully intend to commit adultery with complete awareness, and still desire to receive the Eucharist. They must have some notion that either such a situation is not, in fact, adultery, or they consider themselves a legitimate exception.AugustTherese said:
The question becomes, what is the function of the Church? Is it to clearly inform and educate them on the objective gravity and unconditional sinfulness of their situation? Or is it to “journey and dialogue” with them and keep them in the dark (or at least the shade), and continue to administer the Eucharist regardless of their behavior?
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
EXACTLY! That is the whole theme and purpose of AL! It is a call for pastors to properly and suitably create dialogue with their parishioners for instilling an awareness of their choices and ways of life. Your questions, rhetorical or not, are exactly what AL is intended to address and entertain!1neophyte said:A correction of pope francis has been made public
I would submit that there is not a single solitary person in this situation who fits this criteria. I don’t think that ANY of the many, many divorced and remarried people you speak of fully intend to commit adultery with complete awareness, and still desire to receive the Eucharist. They must have some notion that either such a situation is not, in fact, adultery, or they consider themselves a legitimate exception.
The question becomes, what is the function of the Church? Is it to clearly inform and educate them on the objective gravity and unconditional sinfulness of their situation? Or is it to “journey and dialogue” with them and keep them in the dark (or at least the shade), and continue to administer the Eucharist regardless of their behavior?
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
Thank you for this prayer, Trishie! I’m with you…
Last edited:
O
oppositeman13
Guest
there has always been this dialogue - except now remarried people see an opening created by the pope that “in their situation” there is “wiggle room” or “gray area”. I have already spoken about this to you. This is dangerous for souls and our church - it opens the door to satan to take advantage of what so many want to believe - which is there is “wiggle room” when in God’s eyes, I believe, there is not. People’s salvation is at stake, including your own if you choose to believe wrongly - and that goes for me also and all catholics - this is the tragedy of what has happened in our church.
Last edited:
1
1neophyte
Guest
But addressing and entertaining are cop outs. How about answering questions instead of “entertaining” them?AugustTherese said:
I must confess that I have not read AL in its entirely, and the bulk of my awareness of it comes from the reactions to it. Are you saying that AL affirms the teaching that remarriage without annulment is objectively wrong? Am I incorrect in my understanding that it provides leeway for a “pastoral” approach of NOT clearly informing such couples that their situation is mortally sinful, and allowing them to remain in ignorance for the purposes of allowing them to receive the Eucharist?
Last edited:
O