P
pnewton
Guest
It is grave matter. If you read the post before, it said it was a mortal sin, of which grave matter is one of three requirements. Here is what preceded:
Four Cardinals Formally Ask Pope for Clarity on Amoris Laetitia
- Status
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Your question was “How often would these “accidental” lapses be permitted?”
And you reply “Sin no more” suggesting one is damned 2nd time around
.This was of course a rigorist approach in the Early Church by some communities who ruled that once you broke any of the Commandments after Baptism you couldn’t come back in and were lost. This purist approach was soon abandoned by the wider church.
As your view contradicts Jesus’s admonition to forgive 70x7 24/7 it suggests your understanding of Jn 8:11 is perhaps wanting.
S
Stat_Crux
Guest
Papal infallibility does not cover my posts on this forum. However, I can only use the information available to quote the Church’s position on this. For example, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
On good and evil actions:
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
On Divorce and Remarriage
2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
“If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself”
Sex outside of marriage
2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.
The expression “free union” is fallacious: what can “union” mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?
The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments. All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. the sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
Familiaris Consortio Chapter 84
However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.
I would be happy to see references from you to some magisterial documentation which supports your idea that sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage does not put one in a state of mortal sin.
S
Stat_Crux
Guest
Wrong, one IS damned the second time around in committing adultery. One is damned the first, third, fiftieth or five-hundreth time and so on and so forth. Each time one damns oneself because each time it is a rejection of God.Your question was “How often would these “accidental” lapses be permitted?”
And you reply “Sin no more” suggesting one is damned 2nd time around
This was of course a rigorist approach in the Early Church by some communities who ruled that once you broke any of the Commandments after Baptism you couldn’t come back in and were lost. This purist approach was soon abandoned by the wider church.
As your view contradicts Jesus’s admonition to forgive 70x7 24/7 it suggests your understanding of Jn 8:11 is perhaps wanting.
However, through the mercy of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, we can confess our sins and repent, change our ways and return to a state of grace through the Sacrament of Confession, allowing us to return to a State of Grace and receive the Eucharist. One of the conditions for the Sacrament of Confession is a firm purpose of amendment, that is we sincerely intend not to commit the same sin again or put ourselves into a near occasion of committing the same error.
Jesus does tell us to forgive, and we must, but he also doesn’t say there is nothing to forgive. Mercy and Justice are both two sides of the same coin.
P
pnewton
Guest
I fixed this. The document did not have the bold in it.
Also one is not “damned” at least not necessarily. They may be, if the are commit such an act with full knowledge and full will. And again, if there really is adultery, which there may or may not be. In any case, in the context of the post it seems Blue Horizon meant the person is damned “for all time”, as in, committed a sin that could not be forgiven because Jesus had ordered for them to sin no more. I know, you have to back up and follow the conversation to get the context.
From Amoris Laetitia
This quote keeps getting used as if it proves something, or as if the Holy Father is not aware of it. Perhaps he just has a keen sense of logic. Logically, because something is a practice based in Scripture does not imply it is the only possible practice based in Scripture.
Also one is not “damned” at least not necessarily. They may be, if the are commit such an act with full knowledge and full will. And again, if there really is adultery, which there may or may not be. In any case, in the context of the post it seems Blue Horizon meant the person is damned “for all time”, as in, committed a sin that could not be forgiven because Jesus had ordered for them to sin no more. I know, you have to back up and follow the conversation to get the context.
From Amoris Laetitia
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
SC you are way below speed re this thread so you will have to excuse us if we decline to go over it again for, what is it now, a 5th? time.
You have confused “sins of grave matter” with mortal sins.
For example look up masturbation in the CCC.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
May I ask if you have received any significant Catechetical or moral theology training since leaving secondary school.
Sexual sins are often enough venial and therefore not “damning” if by that you mean a complete loss of sanctifying grace.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
They are?
So if a married man has sex with his mistress or other woman, it is “often enough venial” ?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Correct, it could be a venial sin of grave matter.
Just as is often the case with masturbation and some irregular marriages.
Did Oedipus commit a mortal sin (incest with his mother), a venial sin or merely a fully non culpable transgression of grave matter?
Why do you have a problem with the very old Catholic teaching of mitigated culpability?
P
pnewton
Guest
I doubt that is very often venial, but that’s not really what we are talking about here.
P
pnewton
Guest
Just so we don’t have to start a new thread after the moderator went to all the trouble of merging these threads, here is something new to scramble over.
Catholic Bishop: ‘We Are Witnessing Today a Bizarre Form of Schism’ in the Church, an ‘Anti-Gospel’
cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-we-are-witnessing-today-bizarre-form-schism-church-anti
“These ecclesiastics make use of all evil means, that is to say ruses, deceptions, masterful rhetoric and dialectics, and even the tactic of intimidation and moral violence,”
"As Bishop Schneider warns, an unspecified number of clergy are in a state of internal schism against the divine truth of Christ, and they are employing evil means to hide the reality of their schism including the tactic of intimidation and moral violence.
“To justify their schism, these ecclesiastics are also attempting to project the accusation of schism against clergy, such as the Four Cardinals, who are prudently and earnestly seeking to protect the faith. The personal insults and attacks directed at the cardinals who submitted the dubia [questions to the Pope] indicates the truth about who are the real schismatics, for schism is a sin against charity.”*
I hope everyone can appreciate that this sort of internal chatter should be internal. However, if the media is going to make air this all out in the opening, recognize that there is no cause for alarm, but a great need for patience as the Pope continues to lead the Church. It will all work out, one way or another, at least for the Church as a whole.
Catholic Bishop: ‘We Are Witnessing Today a Bizarre Form of Schism’ in the Church, an ‘Anti-Gospel’
cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/catholic-bishop-we-are-witnessing-today-bizarre-form-schism-church-anti
I found the last two paragraphs rather, let me say, “ironic”, so as not to sound negative. I will let the article speak for itself.
“These ecclesiastics make use of all evil means, that is to say ruses, deceptions, masterful rhetoric and dialectics, and even the tactic of intimidation and moral violence,”
"As Bishop Schneider warns, an unspecified number of clergy are in a state of internal schism against the divine truth of Christ, and they are employing evil means to hide the reality of their schism including the tactic of intimidation and moral violence.
“To justify their schism, these ecclesiastics are also attempting to project the accusation of schism against clergy, such as the Four Cardinals, who are prudently and earnestly seeking to protect the faith. The personal insults and attacks directed at the cardinals who submitted the dubia [questions to the Pope] indicates the truth about who are the real schismatics, for schism is a sin against charity.”*
I hope everyone can appreciate that this sort of internal chatter should be internal. However, if the media is going to make air this all out in the opening, recognize that there is no cause for alarm, but a great need for patience as the Pope continues to lead the Church. It will all work out, one way or another, at least for the Church as a whole.
K
KSU
Guest
This thread should be renamed the red herring thread.
Grave matter, grave sin, mortal sin, venial sin, culpability, repentant, internal forum, accompaniment, etc., etc. are irrelevant topics that can obfuscate the fact that the Universal Catholic Church never has, does not now and never will permit the reception of Holy Communion by D&R adulterers as defined by God Himself in Matthew 19. Nor was it approved by the Synod Fathers despite the shenanigans meant to obtain such approval.
Sin, culpability and all the rest are red herrings based on the designed ambiguity in Chapter 8 of A.L.
It is as shameful as it is true that Communion has knowingly been given to incontinent D&R Catholics, and that the practice and resulting confusion are now exacerbated by Chapter 8 of A.L.–an otherwise timely, beautifully written, awe inspiring document on marriage well worth reading.
At Mass last evening we heard God ask Adam, “Why did you eat the forbidden fruit.”
“Because the woman gave me to eat of it”, Adam answered."
So God asked Eve,“Why did you do such a thing?”
“The serpent deceived me, and I ate,” she answered.
Type of sin? Degree of culpability? God sorted it out so it’s irrelevant to debate it. The point is they made their bed and were made to sleep in it. Today God still instructs us about forbidden fruit through His unchangeable, exception-less doctrine. As was the case with Adam and Eve, He lets us make our own beds. If we disobey, He’ll sort out the sin and culpability without our help.
The old saying is that the Church thinks in terms of centuries. In this age of instant communication, it won’t take the Holy Spirit that long to correct the problem
T
Tomdstone
Guest
see post #864.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I didn’t know that it was “often enough” a venial sin to have sex with a prostitute or generally outside of the marriage bond. I am not sure why I have a problem with that. i guess it is because I thought it was a grave offense.
A
alwayswill
Guest
they support their interpretation of AL
they reject others interpretation of AL
I would think most scholars support CLARIFICATION of AL
that is what this is about : the lack of clarity and the ambiguity that allows the conflicting interpretations of AL.
the scholars support the request for clarification:
do you support the request for clarification?
O
o_mlly
Guest
Because the marriage contract is executed in front of witnesses, marriage in the Church is a community activity. Therefore, the invalidation of such a contract is also a community activity. The community’s judicial process of examining the marriage matter and form is called the annulment process.
The norm of Eucharist exclusion is not a condemnation of the “remarried” but rather a recognition of the need to resolve the irregularity of their situation within the community.
That the annulment process is flawed does not relieve the need for the “remarried” to reconcile their irregularity within the community. Those in the community who judge those in an irregular union will be themselves judged. Pray for them.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Ought the entirety of Scripture then be interpreted in its historical context?Your question was “How often would these “accidental” lapses be permitted?”
And you reply “Sin no more” suggesting one is damned 2nd time around
This was of course a rigorist approach in the Early Church by some communities who ruled that once you broke any of the Commandments after Baptism you couldn’t come back in and were lost. This purist approach was soon abandoned by the wider church.
As your view contradicts Jesus’s admonition to forgive 70x7 24/7 it suggests your understanding of Jn 8:11 is perhaps wanting.
In ‘The Lord’, Guardini notes that there are no words of Jesus in the New Testament that He does not elsewhere contradict. This would be so with respect to justice and mercy. Given impossible demands, God’s grace is necessary.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I would suggest we do not know what Jesus knew.
G
goout
Guest
I am very fond of Guardini and “The Lord”. His point is not that Christ contradicts himself, it’s that he is -seen as- a sign of contradiction. He is seen in this way because human beings have prideful confirmation biases and love to find difficulties and misunderstandings that support their bias.
Guardini maybe more than any other commentator I’ve ever read expresses the isolation, misunderstanding, and rejection that Christ endures at the hands of human beings.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Thanks. I understand and agree. Christ of course does not contradict himself. I think the full meaning of certain seemingly contradictory verses is very difficult to express within the limits of human language.
On this thread is what I see as a dialectic. Consequently, one is sort of compelled to support one side or another of the discussion if it is to continue. I understand something of both sides but have doubts about the wisdom of certain apparent provisions of AL. To fully express and explain these doubts really is not suitable for a forum comment. But in the way that occurs within a dialectic, it seems I might have upset or frustrated a few. I haven’t meant to. It is, or ought to be, a process.
I am also very fond of Romano Guardini.
- Status