Freedom of Conscience

[reen12]

Thus our role is to inform our conscience and then follow it. And since God the Son gave to us the Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth”, and taught that “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me,” then a properly formed conscience is one that does not dissent with the certain teaching of the Catholic Church.

For further information on “religious liberty” see here:

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

See also this discussion: Against Indifferentism

For what the Church teaches regarding “dissent” see here:
Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian

I certaintly appreciate the extent of your knowledge, and your

willingness to provide links, to pertinent information.

Thank you for that.

All of the above, [excluding the links, which I have not

yet read] is predicated on Jesus of Nazareth, as Messiah,

and on the existence of Original Sin.

No Original Sin, no need to be saved from same.

The Church, herself, recognizes this fact:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/389.htm

Note the word “undermining.”

---

One of the poster’s to this thread asked me:
quote: Breton

How does one “maintain intellectual integrity”?

Well, first I have to know that of which such integrity
consits.
One of the realities, congruent with intellectual integrity,
is to refuse to assent to an article of faith - proposed for
belief - when I find same literally “incredible” - based on
a variety of factors.

I could no more believe the following, than sprout wings
and fly:
quote: itsjustdave

The just consequences of all sin include temporal punishment, and for those who die impenitent of mortal sin or merely original sin, the consequences of such sin is eternal punishment

The way this sentence is constructed, leaves me to
wonder:

-Is it being said that a person who dies in Original Sin,
is subject to the consequence of “eternal punishment”?

And how juxtapose the words: “merely” and
“eternal damnation” ?

And if that is what is being maintained, what kind of
God is this “describing”?

---

Catholicism holds that one must receive the Sacrament
of Reconciliation, in order for serious “mortal”] sin, to
be forgiven by God.
Catholics are further counseled that - if no priest is
available - and a person is at the point of death,
that this sin can be forgiven by a “perfect act of
contrition.”
Same is defined as: sorrow for a serious sin, because
this sin has offended God - with no admixture of the fear of hell
present.
I maintain that this is a psychological impossibility -
in terms of the way God “hard-wired” human beings,
psychologically.

---

And so, while I might be able to hold that Jesus of Nazareth:
-was Messiah
-was a divine Person
-rose from the dead

I could never hold, with integrity:
-that original sin exists, as defined by the Church
[note Judaism’s view at:]

aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

-that the Church is infallible, in matters of faith and morals
[see two objections, above]

---

In any event, thank you for conveying the teaching of
the Church, in terms of:
quote: reen12

Maybe one of the posters who is quite familiar with Aquinas, would be willing to address this point.

Regards,

Maureen
[reen12]

 

[reen12]

Hello, Breton,
quote: Breton

How does one “maintain intellectual integrity”?

I’ve attempted to answer your question, in the post
addressed to itsjustdave, above.

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: Matt16_18

Maureen is a self avowed “Noahide”, i.e. a Gentile outside of the covenant with Abraham. As a “Noahide”, Maureen is free to create her own personal little religion with herself a pope. As the ultimate temporal authority in her “non-denominational” Noahide religion of one, she alone decides which interpretation of scriptures she will accept, and she alone decides what the standards of morality are for her personal religion.

The actual description of a Noahide, from a Judaic website:

aish.com/wallcam/7_Noachide_Laws.asp

“Self-avowed?”

quote:Matt16_18

…“Noahide”, i.e. a Gentile outside of the covenant with Abraham.

The definition of a “Gentile” is a non-Jew. All non-Jews
are “outside the Covenant” made with Israel, at Sinai,
unless, and until, they actively convert to Judaism - according
to Judaic belief.
Judaism is not a prosyletizing faith.

I do not speak for Judaism. I will link to a Judaic site,
to let the members of that faith speak for themselves.

The concept of “pope” is unique to Catholicism.
It is not a category, in terms of which, the rest of the
world “lives and moves and has its being.”

Best,

reen12

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

All of the above, [excluding the links, which I have not

yet read] is predicated on Jesus of Nazareth, as Messiah,

and on the existence of Original Sin.

Of course. True religion is always predicated on the truth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

-Is it being said that a person who dies in Original Sin,is subject to the consequence of “eternal punishment”?

Yes. That is exactly what is meant.

Catholic teaching insists that heaven is an undeserved gift. You must be “born from above” to enter heaven. It is not an act of Divine injustice to withold heaven from anyone. It is not deserved, therefore it is not owed.

“Eternal punishment” in the context of those who die with ONLY original sin, means a lack of the gratuitous GIFT of the Beatific Vision of God. God does not owe this gift to anyone. Yet, this does not discount that those in this state of “punishment” of only original sin are not happier than anyone on earth. You see it as a horror that God would not give this gift, but I don’t. I don’t deserve any gift from God and I am grateful for the gifts I have been given.

However, I don’t see the state of those who die in only original sin as a downgrade to our earthy state, but I see it as a joyful *upgrade *to those who die in original sin. In this sense, it is a just existence which omits the torment which the wicked suffer, happy and peaceful but without the GIFT of heavenly bliss.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

Catholicism holds that one must receive the Sacrament
of Reconciliation, in order for serious “mortal”] sin, to
be forgiven by God.

Catholics are further counseled that - if no priest is
available - and a person is at the point of death,
that this sin can be forgiven by a “perfect act of
contrition.”

Incorrect. Catholics are forgiven by “contrition of charity” immediately upon having such a gift given to them by God,* regardless of whether a priest is available. *To be clear, this gift includes the implicit intent of confessing one’s sins. Yet, the gift of contrition of charity is sufficient for remission of all sin. According to Holy Writ, “Love covers a multitude of sins.”

In other words, even if I have a priest available to me, if I were to sin mortally (e.g. adultery), then if I were to be given the gift of contrition of charity (ie., sorrow for sin is primarily due to my love for God), then all sin is remitted even before I receive sacramental absolution.

St. Pius X asserted: “Of all the parts of the sacrament of Penance the most necessary is contrition, because without it no pardon for sins is obtainable, while with it alone, perfect pardon can be obtained, provided that along with it there is the desire, at least implicit, of going to confession.” (Catechism of Pius X, The Sacrament of Penance)

Same is defined as: sorrow for a serious sin, because
this sin has offended God - with no admixture of the fear of hell
present.

Incorrect again. The chief motive (not ONLY motive as you have implied) must be love for God to be “perfect contrition.” One can certainly have a fear of hell and still have perfect contrition. Consider the prayer, Act of Contrition, which is presented in my Roman Missal:

O my God,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,
with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins,
to do penance,
and to amend my life.
Amen.

reen12:
I maintain that this is a psychological impossibility -
in terms of the way God “hard-wired” human beings,
psychologically.

Well, hopefully you now understand that your view of Catholicisim was mistaken.

According to St. Athanasius (a pretty good Catholic):

"when someone falls from the Spirit through any wickedness—that grace indeed remains irrevocably with those who are willing to repent after such a fall. (Discourses Against the Arians, 3, 24-25, ca. AD 358 )

 

[Matt16_18]

Reen12:

All non-Jews are “outside the Covenant” made with Israel …

Not so.… indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call my beloved.’

… not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants.
Romans 9:25 & 7-8

I do not speak for Judaism.

That is correct. Neither you nor anyone else one speaks for Judaism. There won’t be a temporal authority that will speak for the Jews until the Prophet Elijah returns.

You are free to create your own personal religion with yourself as your own ultimate temporal authority about matters involving the interpretation of scriptures and matters concerning what constitutes morality. But you should not expect that your own personal religion can save you.

 

[Matt16_18]

NotWorthy:

Matt, where do you get the idea that I don’t venerate the Old Testament?

Did I ever say that you don’t venerate the Old Testament?

Here is my point. In the Old Testament, the neighbor that you had to love was only those within the covenant. This isn’t due to mis-interpretion, it’s due to Leviticus.

I know that this is your point. Jesus doesn’t agree with you that this is not a misinterpretation of the word “neighbor”.

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

Of course. True religion is always predicated on the truth.

---

God bless,

Dave

Well said, Dave!

Best,

reen

 

[NotWorthy]

Matt, instead of just saying “You’re wrong, it’s a mis-interpretation of Scripture on your part”, please help me correctly interpret this. Aren’t the “sons of your own people” the Hebrews, those under the Mosaic Covenant.

“You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18).

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

“Eternal punishment” in the context of those who die with ONLY original sin, means a lack of the gratuitous GIFT of the Beatific Vision of God. God does not owe this gift to anyone. Yet, this does not discount that those in this state of “punishment” of only original sin are not happier than anyone on earth.

Dave, I cannot begin to convey how odd a view, this

seems to me, in comparison with the Judaic view

of the World to Come. [Olam Ha-Ba]

jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Even to speak in “categories” of -what God does and

does not “owe” to someone - is to convey a caricature

of Divinity, to me.

And how is your explanation, of the fate of those who

remain in Original Sin, congruent with the Catechism’s

treatment of the issue? “baptism of desire?”]

How, exactly - given this - does one *manage *to

remain in Original Sin?

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/847.htm

What really “gets me,” is the talk of Christianity

as the fulfillment of the Covenant. This, to me, is

not an improvement, it is a step *backwards, *in terms

of how God is viewed.

[And let’s not even go *near the issue of “unbaptized babies.”]

If this constitutes the “new law of love” I say,

“No, thank you,” I’ll align myself with Judaism -

and their view of God -

In Judaism, there is a place for the righteous of all nations,

in the World to Come.

Best,

reen

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

According to St. Athanasius (a pretty good Catholic):

Well, it’s too bad St. Athanasius wasn’t up and doing

when the Baltimore Catechism was written!

see #'s 764 and following:

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

This catechism actually refers to the “highest grade”

of contrition. Sounds more like a gasoline rating!

than a relation of the soul’s life with God.

I repeat:

quote: reen12

Same is defined as: sorrow for a serious sin, because
this sin has offended God - with no admixture of the fear of hell
present.
I maintain that this is a psychological impossibility -

in terms of the way God “hard-wired” human beings,
psychologically.

Take a look at # 768 in this link:

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

Of course, I’ll withdraw my objection, if the Church
is willing to repudiate the Baltimore Catechism.

reen

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy:

Matt, instead of just saying “You’re wrong, it’s a mis-interpretation of Scripture on your part”, please help me correctly interpret this. Aren’t the “sons of your own people” the Hebrews, those under the Mosaic Covenant.

“You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:18).

Notworthy

One other thing, I nearly forgot. If the Laws from the Deuteronomic Covenenat were so complete, why are we no longer under the Deuteronomic Covenant?

Notworthy

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

And how is your explanation, of the fate of those who

remain in Original Sin, congruent with the Catechism’s

treatment of the issue? “baptism of desire?”]

Completely congruent. If in fact one dies in a state of original sin, then by definition they were not baptized by God, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

How, exactly - given this - does one *manage *to
remain in Original Sin?

For an adult, one “manages” to remain in original sin if they persistently reject the Holy Spirit by rejecting sacramental baptism or its desire to the end of their life.

For a child whose faculties of reason are not yet mature enough to be culpable for voluntary human acts (personal sin), they would remain in original sin if they are not sacramentally baptized or if God chooses not to extra-sacramentally baptize the child.

The Church certainly prays for the extra-sacramental baptism of children who die prior to sacramental baptism, and we can have legitamite hope that God will sanctify them based upon the faithful prayer of His Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12:

What really “gets me,” is the talk of Christianity

as the fulfillment of the Covenant. This, to me, is

not an improvement, it is a step backwards, in terms

of how God is viewed.

[And let’s not even go *near

the issue of “unbaptized babies.”]

You and I have completely different understandings of Catholicism and Judaism, it appears. I’ve studied both in college.

Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism no. 3 is for children. It lacks depth. I recommend you defer to Catholic texts that are for adults if you want to have a more mature understanding of Catholicism.

For example, the Baltimore Catechism no. 4 is for adult Catechists. It states:

"we must be sorry for the sin on account of some reason God has made known to us. For example, EITHER because our sin is displeasing to God, or because we have lost heaven by it, or because we fear to be punished for it in Hell or Purgatory. BUT, if we are sorry for our sin ONLY on account of some natural motive, then our sorrow is not of the right kind… If we are sorry for having offended God on account of His own goodness, our contrition is said to be perfect. If we are sorry for the sins because by them we are in great dange of being punished by God, or because we have lost Heaven by them, AND WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR GOD’S OWN GOODNESS , then our contrition is said to be imperfect. (Baltimore Catechism no. 4, pg. 172)

So imperfect contrition is not simply because we have ALSO a fear of just punishment. Thus, perfect and imperfect contrition are not mutually exclusive as you seem to have implied. When our primary motive is love for God, even if we also have lesser motives, then our contrition is perfect.A person can have both at the same time.

Furthermore, fear of just punishment is listed in the Baltimore Catechism as among the supernatural motives for sorrow. Thus, it too is a gift from God and everone who has such sorrow should be strengthened and enlightened by the knowledge that this sorrow is prompted by the grace of God. I’m sorry your catechists failed to teach you this when you were younger.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms, as I have stated earlier that pefect contrition alone remits all sin, if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental absolution as soon as possible. (CCC 1452). This is true everytime we have perfect contrition, regardless of the availability of a priest at the exact INSTANT I commit a sin.

You seem to dissent more with what you erroneously THINK the Catholic Church teaches on this matter than what the Church actually teaches. From what you have implied, perfect and imperfect contrition are mutually exclusive. The Church doesn’t teach this, however.

 

[reen12]

Hello, itsjustdave

quote: itsjust dave

From what you have implied, perfect and imperfect contrition are mutually exclusive. The Church doesn’t teach this, however.

I’ll leave it to readers of this thread, to decide - after reading
what was taught, in the 1950’s in the catechism -
whether or not “The Church doesn’t teach this…”

see #'s 764 and following, especially #768:

ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-18.htm

quote: reen12

And how is your explanation, of the fate of those who

remain in Original Sin, congruent with the Catechism’s

treatment of the issue? “baptism of desire?”]

quote: itsjustdave
Completely congruent. If in fact one dies in a state of original sin, then by definition they were not baptized by God, either sacramentally or extra-sacramentally.

Quote:
How, exactly - given this - does one *manage *to
remain in Original Sin?

For an adult, one “manages” to remain in original sin if they persistently reject the Holy Spirit by rejecting sacramental baptism or its desire to the end of their life.

For a child whose faculties of reason are not yet mature enough to be culpable for voluntary human acts (personal sin), they would remain in original sin if they are not sacramentally baptized or if God chooses not to extra-sacramentally baptize the child.

The Church certainly prays for the extra-sacramental baptism of children who die prior to sacramental baptism, and we can have legitamite hope that God will sanctify them based upon the faithful prayer of His Church.

I’m stunned, that this could be held.

I ask again: What kind of God is being described, here?

Thanks for replying, Dave,

Maureen

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism no. 3 is for children. It lacks depth. I recommend you defer to Catholic texts that are for adults if you want to have a more mature understanding of Catholicism.

Happily, and after consulting many a Catholic text,
over the years, I am able to look at the following and realize
that no amount of adult nuancing will save this “teaching”
from absurdity:

quote: itsjustdave

For a child whose faculties of reason are not yet mature enough to be culpable for voluntary human acts (personal sin), they would remain in original sin if they are not sacramentally baptized or if God chooses not to extra-sacramentally baptize the child.

The Church certainly prays for the extra-sacramental baptism of children who die prior to sacramental baptism, and we can have legitamite hope that God will sanctify them based upon the faithful prayer of His Church.

I’ve seen some Protestants ask:
What Would Jesus Do?

I leave it to the imagination of the reader, to conclude
what Jesus “would do” with that account of how
Divine Love ‘works’ -brought to us, with infallibility, by the CC.

That’s the trouble with reaching adulthood, and going
forward. The additional reading, life experience and
just plain common sense, enables one to be in a
position to look at what is taught, and to say:
This teaching reflects God?

Perhaps it is just me. Still, I invite those who come
across the following, to decide for themselves, if
this reflects a Father’s love:
quote: itsjustdave

For a child whose faculties of reason are not yet mature enough to be culpable for voluntary human acts (personal sin), they would remain in original sin if they are not sacramentally baptized or if God chooses not to extra-sacramentally baptize the child.

…and we can have legitamite hope that God will sanctify them…

Hope? Not the certainty of God’s saving love, for an infant?

But, then, I’m not budgeting for the place of infallible doctrine,
in all it’s nuances…which leaves us to hope - and not
know, with certainty - that God will gather up such infants to Himself.

Legal-brief Christianity, I think.
…and light years away from the good news, IMO.

“Let the little children come to Me, for such is the
Kingdom of Heaven.”

These kids were fortunate. A baptismal certificate
wasn’t required, yet.

Regards,

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism no. 3 is for children. It lacks depth. I recommend you defer to Catholic texts that are for adults if you want to have a more mature understanding of Catholicism

.
quote: itsjustdave

For example, the Baltimore Catechism no. 4 is for adult Catechists.

Then let’s look at the nuanced teaching, provided by
the Baltimore Catechism #4, that you reference,

quote: itsjustdave, quoting Baltimore Catechism #4

"we must be sorry for the sin on account of some reason God has made known to us. For example, EITHER because our sin is displeasing to God, or because we have lost heaven by it, or because we fear to be punished for it in Hell or Purgatory. BUT, if we are sorry for our sin ONLY on account of some natural motive, then our sorrow is not of the right kind… If we are sorry for having offended God on account of His own goodness, our contrition is said to be perfect. If we are sorry for the sins because by them we are in great dange of being punished by God, or because we have lost Heaven by them, AND WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR GOD’S OWN GOODNESS , then our contrition is said to be imperfect. (Baltimore Catechism no. 4, pg. 172)

Right. And all of this is going to go thru the mind of
a person, suddenly at the point of death, and who
has been living in a lifetime of sin…paralyzed with
fear…

Legal brief Christianity.

Gospel Christianity:
The Father, seeing the plight of His son or daughter,
at the last moment of life, reaches out and calls to
him/her…offers this soul Love and forgiveness,
and great mercy.

Perhaps no difference is seen, between the reality
described by the Baltimore Catechism #4 and
this Gospel Christianity depiction…
I’ll let others decide.

reen12

 

[reen12]

Say, look what I just found, online:

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1897480,00.html

Thank goodness, limbo was never held as a
‘definitive doctrine.’

reen12

 

[reen12]

As to limbo, here’s what the Baltimore Cathechism #3

had to say about it.

See question #632

searchgodsword.org/his/ad/cac/cat/baltimorecm.html

I wonder how that would be “nuanced” in B.C. #4 ?

Hmmmmm…

reen12