For Pope Francis, legalism makes Christians stupid. [CNA]

[josh987654321]

I can’t help but think of how organizations like *‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ *and ‘Catholics United’ are going to have a field day with just how much they can use this ambiguity to their advantage.

I’m not accusing our Holy Father Pope Francis or anything, but I wish it wasn’t so ambiguous.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You can hate the sin, while loving the sinner, just as you would love your child when you know they are living in an unmarried relationship and committing a mortal sin. The sin is hated, but child is not. The two are not the same. So if a homosexual thinks they are hated by the Church they are wrong. It is only the sin that is hated.

Good, say this ^ instead of “homosexuality is a sin”, except for the mortal sin part, that’s wrong; it’s grave matter not necessarily a mortal sin.

A couple living together, but not married, may not want to hear the truth about their sin, but **would a priest not guide them on the right path just because their feelings may be hurt? ** Hurt feelings are to be considered, but shouldn’t the salvation of the soul be the goal?

If the priest thinks they would be driven away he would be compassionate with them. Realizing they may not even know what they are doing is wrong because a lack of catechesis. Yes, lack of catechesis is a major problem with the under 50 crowd. The priest would have to find a way to get to them without making them feel condemned. Priests have a VERY difficult job these days. Most Catholics do not go to mass or Catholic schools, not to mention a shortage of clergy, so how would they ever know about such things when the culture they live in says everything is okay. You need to be more empathetic towards those who are not as spiritually blessed as you.

All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life,** are always objective mortal sins.** I think a young person with Same Sex Attraction needs to learn the truth, even if it is difficult for them to accept, then they can get the help they need and be led on the right path again.

No they are not. They are all grave matter, not necessarily mortal sins.

A young person with SSA will never want to be in the same room with you if you give them the impression you hate them. Be careful what you say to them. They are not bad dogs that need correction. Just as you do not understand what a mortal sin is, they may not understand Catholic teaching regarding SSA.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I can’t help but think of how organizations like *‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ *and ‘Catholics United’ are going to have a field day with just how much they can use this ambiguity to their advantage.

I’m not accusing our Holy Father Pope Francis or anything, but I wish it wasn’t so ambiguous.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Anything taken out of context can be ambiguous. The media is hell bent on seeing things that aren’t there; the Pope’s message regarding Galations is no exception. This is not the Holy Fathers fault. I don’t know if he has ever spoken out against these pseudo Catholic groups.

The disagreements between Protestants and Catholics is much more exploitable for the purpose of causing confusion among the public. Many people do not even know the difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations. They just think Christianity is…fill in the blank…; without distinguishing the faiths from each other.

 

[irishpatrick]

For whatever reason, Pope Francis has placed a strong emphasis on God’s Mercy, to a point of declaring this an Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy (which, btw, ends in 37 days). While doing so, he has not changed any teachings–he just seems to have a completely different perspective at this exact time in salvation history. I cannot help but think about Noah and the flood…the world continued to go about its business as if nothing was happening, and then the floods came upon them.

The Pope is a Holy and Brilliant man–he most certainly knows what the Church teaches, yet he continues to emphasize mercy…perhaps more Christians should think about that. I think the Holy Father is attempting to cast a wide net, trying to entice people to give the faith another look, and in the process save many souls. The Catholics who truly strive to follow the faith and remain obedient, they are like the Apostles during the Bread of Life Discourse–they might feel confused, yet they are not going anywhere because Jesus has the Words of Life and Jesus is the Bread of Life (and the Pope likely knows that too, he can count on those who are faithful to remain faithful as he strives to save souls).

Just my two cents.

 

[josh987654321]

For whatever reason, Pope Francis has placed a strong emphasis on God’s Mercy, to a point of declaring this an Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy (which, btw, ends in 37 days). While doing so, he has not changed any teachings–he just seems to have a completely different perspective at this exact time in salvation history. I cannot help but think about Noah and the flood…the world continued to go about its business as if nothing was happening, and then the floods came upon them.

The Pope is a Holy and Brilliant man–he most certainly knows what the Church teaches, yet he continues to emphasize mercy…perhaps more Christians should think about that. I think the Holy Father is attempting to cast a wide net, trying to entice people to give the faith another look, and in the process save many souls. The Catholics who truly strive to follow the faith and remain obedient, they are like the Apostles during the Bread of Life Discourse–they might feel confused, yet they are not going anywhere because Jesus has the Words of Life and Jesus is the Bread of Life (and the Pope likely knows that too, he can count on those who are faithful to remain faithful as he strives to save souls).

Just my two cents.

I agree,

But at the same time, I don’t think this infiltration of the Catholic Church is just with ‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ or ‘Catholics United’.

God Bless You and I’ll pray for our Holy Father Pope Francis and the Church.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[zz912]

I think you need to read this more carefully and in context of paragraph 2072 and the CCC as a whole. It’s referring to the fact that the Decalogue is written on our hearts and therefore we cannot dispense ourselves from it.

The Church, however, allows for killing in just war and self-defense. It also allows for our holy day to be on Sunday instead of Friday night through Saturday. It also allows for other dispensations regarding the Decalogue because Jesus came to show that the law does not lord over charity.

This is completely false.

The Church does NOT dispense with any of the 10 commandments. From the very beginning when it was written, “thou shall not kill” has always meant murder. Killing in justified self-defense or just war was NEVER part of “thou shall not kill”.

And the Church, with her authority, transferred the Old Covenant Sabbath honor to the New Covenant Lord’s Day honor. The requirement is still the same, and the Church teaches we are to refrain from servile work and to worship at Mass on that day. That requirement is ONLY dispensed with if there is just reason, like illness, a hurricane/blizzard, or some justified reason why a person could not be expected to attend Mass. And this dispensation was the SAME in the Old Covenant.

So you have presented a false narrative.

And please list off all these other dispensations you claim the Church has allowed. The Church EXPLICITLY says the 10 Commandments are ALWAYS immutable and binding.

 

[pnewton]

Really? You totally reject what is spelled out in the Catechism? I guess you are done!

No, I did not “reject what is spelled out in the Catechism”. However, I am wondering if the English language and the rule of reason is done. Too much arguing here is about refuting stuff and not understanding. Okay, that’s fine for what I said. But do not forget this started with a sermon from the Holy Father, and as is usually the case, there were more wanting to argue with him than understand him. Welcome to America Catholicism. But what is worse, is that the understanding of leaving the Christian life goes back further.

Yet if you note, at no time did I say anyone was done because they “totally reject what the Bible says”. That is because such a sentence begs the question. Yet I remember that Galatians pre-dates the Catechism by 1900 years and carries the greatest weight in all of Catholic teaching, that of Sacred Scripture. Instead of talking about me, I think it would be useful to ask those who are having a difficult time with Pope of what they have gleaned in reading the letter to the Galatians, in the context of all of Sacred Scripture.

 

[goout]

I think you need to read this more carefully and in context of paragraph 2072 and the CCC as a whole. It’s referring to the fact that the Decalogue is written on our hearts and therefore we cannot dispense ourselves from** it**.

What is “it” you are referring to? The Decalogue. You are saying the decalogue is indispensable.
The Decalogue is an unavoidable part of the Christian life. If we are to have a full relationship with God and others, our lives are conformed to it, through Christ who fulfills it. Christ brings the decalogue to life, he doesn’t relativize it.

The law is written on every heart. Don’t misunderstand “heart” to mean the realm of feelings. That’s not what the heart is.

The Church, however, allows for killing in just war and self-defense. It also allows for our holy day to be on Sunday instead of Friday night through Saturday. It also allows for other dispensations regarding the Decalogue because Jesus came to show that the law does not lord over charity.

The law is at the service of love. A lawless society is not a loving society.

 

[pnewton]

What is “it” you are referring to? The Decalogue. You are saying the decalogue is indispensable.

It is absolutely indispensible and the essential framework to moral teaching. However, without question we do not keep the third commandment. It has been such an issue for some Christians that they have built their denomination around Sabbatical teaching. The Catechism explains the manner in which we observe this commandment, yet we do not meet and rest on Saturday. This is critical data, for the way we observe this, and the way we translate this commandment into moral behavior is the same for all Ten commandments. In the case of this one though, the effect is magnified because of the day being moved to honor the resurrection, and the completion of salvation.

I note that even Jesus was accused by the legalistic minds of his day like the Holy Father is today. When dealing with the Sabbath, he went to the moral principle behind the Sabbath, not the commandment, say that the Sabbath was made for man. He actually did the same thing for adultery and murder, pointing out the moral evils of hate and lust. Yet at the same time he said not one jot and tittle shall pass away from the law. We can see that this has caused Christians to stumble from the first. Besides Galatians and Romans, we see this same issue has to be addressed throughout the New Testament, from Romans to Revelation. As important as the Catechism is, there is no substitute for Scripture. The irony is that all the writings Paul, Peter, James, John, etc., make more sense from a Catholic understanding than from the view of those that believe the Bible alone.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is completely false.

The Church does NOT dispense with any of the 10 commandments. From the very beginning when it was written, “thou shall not kill” has always meant murder. Killing in justified self-defense or just war was NEVER part of “thou shall not kill”.

And the Church, with her authority, transferred the Old Covenant Sabbath honor to the New Covenant Lord’s Day honor. The requirement is still the same, and the Church teaches we are to refrain from servile work and to worship at Mass on that day. That requirement is ONLY dispensed with if there is just reason, like illness, a hurricane/blizzard, or some justified reason why a person could not be expected to attend Mass. And this dispensation was the SAME in the Old Covenant.

So you have presented a false narrative.

And please list off all these other dispensations you claim the Church has allowed. The Church EXPLICITLY says the 10 Commandments are ALWAYS immutable and binding.

We are not under Mosaic Law. Though shalt not kill does not mean though shalt not murder.

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods.

Note the word “unjustly”. Stealing justly is still stealing.

Lying is held to be prohibited by the Eighth Commandment, but that commandment literally condemns only the bearing of false witness (as in a legal proceeding), so lying and other verbal sins are included by extension, through moral reasoning. Indeed, the importance of speaking the truth is thoroughly rooted in the natural law. For this reason, it has been relatively easy not only for Christians but for most others to see that, at the least, it is intrinsically immoral to speak falsely in a serious matter for an unworthy motive (such as to gain something to which one has no right, or to avoid a punishment that is justly due). Philosophers have also pointed out the violation of human integrity involved in a lie, for when we lie we speak one thing while thinking another—a practice hardly conducive to integral personal development or growth in virtue.

And yet the problem of the “necessary lie” presents itself immediately, a problem recognized and discussed down through the ages not only by Catholic saints and moral theologians, but by other Christians, non-Christians, and even those of no religion at all. The situation faced by Bishop Firmus is a classic formulation of the circumstances leading to a necessary lie. Since the mid-20th century, the same problem has been posed in terms of whether Christians hiding Jews in Nazi Germany could morally lie to those seeking to find and destroy them.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-lying-ever-right

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

Read this carefully.

2055 When someone asks him, "Which commandment in the Law is the greatest?"8 Jesus replies: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets."9 The Decalogue must be interpreted in light of this twofold yet single commandment of love, the fullness of the Law:

The commandments: “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.10

We are obliged to the Decalogue, but not in a legalistic sense. Charity and love lord over the law. We are obliged to charity and love first. The CCC tries to make this clear, but it cannot spell out every situation in life in which a person has to chose whether or not to follow the Decalogue as they understand it. The CCC goes into some detail in order to clarify things, but it’s ultimately up to one’s discernment to figure it out day to day.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is completely false.

The Church does NOT dispense with any of the 10 commandments. From the very beginning when it was written, “thou shall not kill” has always meant murder. Killing in justified self-defense or just war was NEVER part of “thou shall not kill”.

And the Church, with her authority, transferred the Old Covenant Sabbath honor to the New Covenant Lord’s Day honor. The requirement is still the same, and the Church teaches we are to refrain from servile work and to worship at Mass on that day. That requirement is ONLY dispensed with if there is just reason, like illness, a hurricane/blizzard, or some justified reason why a person could not be expected to attend Mass. And this dispensation was the SAME in the Old Covenant.

So you have presented a false narrative.

And please list off all these other dispensations you claim the Church has allowed. The Church EXPLICITLY says the 10 Commandments are ALWAYS immutable and binding.

There is no more Mosaic Law that describes in detail what to do in certain situations, Jesus did away with it. That is our clue, along with the simplification of the law according to Jesus, that we are not to be legalistic with our faith. The decalogue is binding in our conscience:

The Decalogue and the natural law

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31
2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32
We know God’s commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.

Do you see the context of conscience here. The Decalogue written on our hearts is called synderesis.

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What is “it” you are referring to? The Decalogue. You are saying the decalogue is indispensable.
The Decalogue is an unavoidable part of the Christian life. If we are to have a full relationship with God and others, our lives are conformed to it, through Christ who fulfills it. Christ brings the decalogue to life, he doesn’t relativize it.

The law is written on every heart. Don’t misunderstand “heart” to mean the realm of feelings. That’s not what the heart is.

The law is at the service of love. A lawless society is not a loving society.

Yes the decalogue is indispensable in so far as it is not to be held legalistically. This is what the Pope was talking about you know. And this is why the CCC is 900 pages long and the decalogue is 10 sentences long.

I know what ‘the heart’ refers to.

There are a lot of well meaning people on CAF who seem to be consistantly confounded by Pope Francis. They should try to understand what he is saying instead of fighting with the CAF members who do understand, and are trying to shed light on what he said.

 

[JosieN]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosieN View Post
All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are always objective mortal sins. I think a young person with Same Sex Attraction needs to learn the truth, even if it is difficult for them to accept, then they can get the help they need and be led on the right path again.

Originally Posted by 1Lord1Faith **They are all grave matter, not necessarily mortal sins.
**

When did homosexuality and fornication stop being called sins and made into grave matter? Does anyone even understand what grave matter means? It is just more confusion and will cause more sinners to keep living a sinful life.

 

[goout]

Well, you have the two things conflated. So yes, it’s important to understand what the Pope and the CCC are saying and not saying.

Yes the decalogue is indispensable in so far as

No, the Ten are not indispensable “in so far as”

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them.

It’s a fine point, but you are insisting on the point, so let’s expose it fully. The decalogue is not indispensable “in so far as”…

it is not to be held legalistically.

And that is true as well. But the fact that some live the commandments with legal rigor does not affect their indispensability.

There are a lot of well meaning people on CAF who seem to be consistantly confounded by Pope Francis. They should try to understand what he is saying instead of fighting with the CAF members who do understand, and are trying to shed light on what he said.:yup:

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s a fine point, but you are insisting on the point, so let’s expose it fully. The decalogue is not indispensable “in so far as”…

If you want to fully expose it, read more of the CCC instead of cherry picking paragraphs.

And that is true as well. But the fact that some live the commandments with legal rigor does not affect their indispensability.

No, just their salvation. If they hold the law above charity they may jeopardize their relationship with God.

This issue has been discussed over and over for 2K years and people still think ‘law’ carries enough weight to run over anything in it’s path.

 

[goout]

If you want to fully expose it, read more of the CCC instead of cherry picking paragraphs.

No, just their salvation. If they hold the law above charity they may jeopardize their relationship with God.

This issue has been discussed over and over for 2K years and people still think ‘law’ carries enough weight to run over anything in it’s path.

Ok so since you didn’t address the points we’ll accept that we are in tune. Great.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Ok so since you didn’t address the points we’ll accept that we are in tune. Great.

There is no more Mosaic Law that describes in detail what to do in certain situations, Jesus did away with it. That is our clue, along with the simplification of the law according to Jesus, that we are not to be legalistic with our faith. The decalogue is binding in our conscience:

The Decalogue and the natural law

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31
2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32
We know God’s commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.
Do you see the context of conscience here. The Decalogue written on our hearts is called synderesis.
Quote:
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

Do you see the context of conscience here. The Decalogue written on our hearts is called synderesis.

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

This thread is about legalism, that means ‘in relation to law’. The part of the CCC you and that other poster keep bringing up is in relation to our conscience. The Decalogue is indispensable from our conscience. God put it there, there is no dispensing from it.

This is different from the Church granting dispensations from the ‘law’ in the name of Charity. For example, you can miss Church if your sick or have to care for someone who is sick. This example should suffice as proof that the Decalogue, in so far it pertains to Church law, is dispensable.

 

[JosieN]

If you want to fully expose it, read more of the CCC instead of cherry picking paragraphs.

No, just their salvation. If they hold the law above charity they may jeopardize their relationship with God.

This issue has been discussed over and over for 2K years and people still think ‘law’ carries enough weight to run over anything in it’s path.

Our sins jeopardize our relationship with God, you must know what sins are to avoid them. If you do not know what the sins are and do not teach them out of fear of offending sinners, how is that charitable?

The commandments and the traditional Church teachings may be legalistic and rigid and can offend the sensitive sinner, but they have stood the test of time.

The commandments were given to us by God Himself. I have heard we have evolved and become enlightened and understand the teachings better now, does that make us more charitable than in the past? I do not understand the point you are making, unless you believe this is true.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Our sins jeopardize our relationship with God, you must know what sins are to avoid them. If you do not know what the sins are and do not teach them out of fear of offending sinners, how is that charitable?

The commandments and the traditional Church teachings may be legalistic and rigid and can offend the sensitive sinner, but they have stood the test of time.

The commandments were given to us by God Himself. I have heard we have evolved and become enlightened and understand the teachings better now, does that make us more charitable than in the past? I do not understand the point you are making, unless you believe this is true.

I, basically, don’t disagree with what you say here. The point I’m making is in the way in which teaching is presented. When ‘Churched’ people say “homosexuality”, they are usually referring to the act, not the individual. But those who are unchurched think the ‘Churched’ person is referring to the person with SSA, not the act. Do you see?

The simple charitable act of speaking a language the uncatechised will understand is what will reach them. Continually speaking in a vernacular that popular culture does not understand is counterproductive.

Do not tell me that I am changing Church teaching for the sake of hurt feelings. If you cannot understand my point by now then you have no charity and are no better than any other grave sinner. A sin against charity is a sin against God, which is much worse than a sin of the flesh.

 

[OraLabora]

When did homosexuality and fornication stop being called sins and made into grave matter?

Homosexuality is not a sin, it is a condition. The sins are homosexual acts, which are sodomy of one form or another, and are just as sinful whether they are done by homosexuals or heterosexuals. A homosexual who never acts on his or her inclination is not sinning and deserves better than saying that he or she is a “sin”.

Does anyone even understand what grave matter means? It is just more confusion and will cause more sinners to keep living a sinful life.

This has been the constant teaching of the Church. This is what the Baltimore Catechism of 1941 says of mortal sin:

1. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
   To make a sin mortal these three things are needed:

the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong;
the sinner, must be mindful of the serious wrong;
the sinner must fully consent to it.

In the current catechism, “seriously wrong” has been replaced by “grave matter”. They are synonyms. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. It basically says the same thing as the current catechism:

1. When does one commit a mortal sin?

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.

Same concept, different choice of words, no difference.