H
Hope_Philomena
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
@Teek @OneSheep I think I’ve gotten this specific wrong. Sorry about that.
V
vincentleo
Guest
Here is what I mean:
“Confusion” because multiple interpretations are possible but not all of these interpretations are compatible with each other.
“Conflict” because, as a result of ambiguity, different territories have actually adopted various interpretations that are not compatible with one another.
Can doctrine take the place of the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ; doctrine is the teaching of the Church which Jesus established. These two things are not conflicting…one does not replace the other. But, if what you mean is, receiving the Eucharist is more important than figuring out doctrinal discrepancies…I must disagree. Without doctrine, even the Eucharist is unknowable since it is doctrine which teaches us about the Eucharist. It is doctrine which helps us form our consciences to make right moral choices, which have consequences for the salvation or condemntation of our souls. We must have the Sacrament, we must also have doctrine.
Certainly, each person who reads something may read it differently, but the whole purpose of the magisterium is that certain concepts can be defined clearly enough so that all parties understand it to the exclusion of certain errors.
Is something happening in parishes? Yes: as a result of these things, some who are in a state of mortal sin are, or are being enabled to, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is the problem.
“Confusion” because multiple interpretations are possible but not all of these interpretations are compatible with each other.
“Conflict” because, as a result of ambiguity, different territories have actually adopted various interpretations that are not compatible with one another.
Can doctrine take the place of the Eucharist? The Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ; doctrine is the teaching of the Church which Jesus established. These two things are not conflicting…one does not replace the other. But, if what you mean is, receiving the Eucharist is more important than figuring out doctrinal discrepancies…I must disagree. Without doctrine, even the Eucharist is unknowable since it is doctrine which teaches us about the Eucharist. It is doctrine which helps us form our consciences to make right moral choices, which have consequences for the salvation or condemntation of our souls. We must have the Sacrament, we must also have doctrine.
Certainly, each person who reads something may read it differently, but the whole purpose of the magisterium is that certain concepts can be defined clearly enough so that all parties understand it to the exclusion of certain errors.
Is something happening in parishes? Yes: as a result of these things, some who are in a state of mortal sin are, or are being enabled to, receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is the problem.
P
pnewton
Guest
How can this even be known? I do not doubt that it happens, only because it has always happened since the time of St. Paul. But how does one know someone else is in a state of mortal sin?
I say this because this usurping of the judgement seat of Christ is kind of the thing that has caused otherwise good Catholics to stumble of Pope Francis. There are many things we do not know, and cannot know. One is the status of another’s soul. Yet when it comes to what Pope Francis is doing, we not only try to judge the status of another’s soul, we judge those which we never have met.
Last edited:
V
vincentleo
Guest
This is not an explanation of the situation that I have heard before, and I wish it was this easily explained. But from everything I can see, this explanation isn’t accurate.
The issue is not about whether a couple has gone through the annulment process, but whether or not an annulment was actually obtained, and, where believers should be counseled that with the help of God the fully moral life is possible, instead there is this idea that for some people the fully moral life is not possible, at least not at the given moment, even with God’s grace, and so instead the moral law itself must be lifted so that the normally-immoral behavior is no longer immoral. This doesn’t seem right to me.
Regarding the OP, I am simply stating that there are some problematic questions about Pope Francis which ordinary Catholics should have a care to not dismiss too quickly…it is more important than some might think.
The issue is not about whether a couple has gone through the annulment process, but whether or not an annulment was actually obtained, and, where believers should be counseled that with the help of God the fully moral life is possible, instead there is this idea that for some people the fully moral life is not possible, at least not at the given moment, even with God’s grace, and so instead the moral law itself must be lifted so that the normally-immoral behavior is no longer immoral. This doesn’t seem right to me.
Regarding the OP, I am simply stating that there are some problematic questions about Pope Francis which ordinary Catholics should have a care to not dismiss too quickly…it is more important than some might think.
V
vincentleo
Guest
Please understand: this is not a question of knowing or judging who else in the congregation is in a state of mortal sin. It is a matter of the moral and Biblical principle that all who receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin “eat and drink judgment against themselves” (1 Cor 29).
P
pnewton
Guest
I love it! That is exactly the verse I was thinking of when I mentioned this problem went all the way back to St. Paul. I guess that is my point. There is nothing new happening here. As there was no such thing as canon law back then, as silly as that sounds, Paul took the approach of self-examination. It is right there in the same discourse. I know we are way past that point. But I understand the danger also of thinking that canon law can cover any and all situations. At least working with a priest in spiritual direction can help one avoid self-deception, even leading to an acceptance of having to live as brother and sister, if that is what is called for.
E
Edward_H
Guest
In logic that’s called an unknown fact, and it’s a logical error. You have to insert and make up stuff in order to hold on to a faulty view.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The problem is with your interpretation of what St Paul was addressing should not apply across the board for all Catholics today.
First off, Paul was addressing the church at Corinth, where they were treating the Eucharists celebration as a dinner party. People were eating, drinking without observance of the Sacredness of the Sacrament,. Even non-believers were present and receiving the Holy Eucharist. These are those who are not worthy to receive because they didn’t have faith in Jesus Christ, nor an understanding of just what was taking place at the Eucharist celebration. Read the entire text to get the correct context.
Fact is, even at that time and for the next 250 years, there was no private confessions. The only confessions were made by the individual who stood before the congregation to confess their sins.
However, only three sins required this level of confession and the main one was apostasy. Many rejected the faith rather than risk death during the time of persecution in the Church,
This meant that everyone else, received Holy Communion at Mass.
So using 1 Corinthians 29, to keep people from receiving Holy Communion is flawed theology.
Jim
First off, Paul was addressing the church at Corinth, where they were treating the Eucharists celebration as a dinner party. People were eating, drinking without observance of the Sacredness of the Sacrament,. Even non-believers were present and receiving the Holy Eucharist. These are those who are not worthy to receive because they didn’t have faith in Jesus Christ, nor an understanding of just what was taking place at the Eucharist celebration. Read the entire text to get the correct context.
Fact is, even at that time and for the next 250 years, there was no private confessions. The only confessions were made by the individual who stood before the congregation to confess their sins.
However, only three sins required this level of confession and the main one was apostasy. Many rejected the faith rather than risk death during the time of persecution in the Church,
This meant that everyone else, received Holy Communion at Mass.
So using 1 Corinthians 29, to keep people from receiving Holy Communion is flawed theology.
Jim
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
It’s a valid question. Afterall there are liberals and ‘spirit’ of Vatican II types who have not forgiven Pope Benedict XVI for Summorum Pontificum.
S
simpleas
Guest
Wow, so only confession at that time was for 3 serious sins, what were the other two?
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
Insightful post. Well said.
G
graciew
Guest
We know more than this in all honesty:
20 So he left the place and went back to his father. 'While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was moved with pity. He ran to the boy, clasped him in his arms and kissed him.
21 Then his son said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son.”
22 But the father said to his servants, "Quick! Bring out the best robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
www.catholic.org
The father is a joy to watch in the passage,an amazing father indeed. He saw the son when he was still a long way off,he was moved by pity,he ran,clasped him and kissed him…
And the " but" in the paragraph…there was his son ," Quick! " the urgency to celebrate…all this joy! Wow…
One could stay watching this scene for a very long time…it is so beautiful. Not to be skipped really.
20 So he left the place and went back to his father. 'While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was moved with pity. He ran to the boy, clasped him in his arms and kissed him.
21 Then his son said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son.”
22 But the father said to his servants, "Quick! Bring out the best robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
Luke - Chapter 15 - Bible - Catholic Online
1 The tax collectors and sinners, however, were all crowding round to listen to him, 2 and the Pharisees and scribes complained saying, 'This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.' 3 So he told them this parable:
www.catholic.org
The father is a joy to watch in the passage,an amazing father indeed. He saw the son when he was still a long way off,he was moved by pity,he ran,clasped him and kissed him…
And the " but" in the paragraph…there was his son ," Quick! " the urgency to celebrate…all this joy! Wow…
One could stay watching this scene for a very long time…it is so beautiful. Not to be skipped really.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
" I am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon with mercy"
This is what he said.
There is this gaze…
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Theft and Adultery were generally the two others.
A Papal Bull prohibited private confession until later.
Private Confessions didn’t come about until religious persecution of Christians in parts of Europe, where clergy were confined inside the walls of their monasteries. The only access people had for spiritual direction, was by speaking to a priest from a window on the outside wall. Eventually, a room was constructed on the outside wall and the person could enter the room and the priest would open the small window to speak with the person. Of course, confession then became part of spiritual direction and it became so popular that private confession became the norm, much the way we confess today.
Jim
A Papal Bull prohibited private confession until later.
Private Confessions didn’t come about until religious persecution of Christians in parts of Europe, where clergy were confined inside the walls of their monasteries. The only access people had for spiritual direction, was by speaking to a priest from a window on the outside wall. Eventually, a room was constructed on the outside wall and the person could enter the room and the priest would open the small window to speak with the person. Of course, confession then became part of spiritual direction and it became so popular that private confession became the norm, much the way we confess today.
Jim
E
Edward_H
Guest
Net: The father waited for the son to come to his senses…and his son made the decision to return (the will and intellect operating toward the good) after an examination of conscience…AND crucially…he made a verbal confession.
You can embellish and add pretend stories to this…but you can’t change the observed facts from Scripture.
A “reconciliation” first occured interior to the son…the will and the intellect first reconciled, and then ordered the body to return to the father.
You can embellish and add pretend stories to this…but you can’t change the observed facts from Scripture.
A “reconciliation” first occured interior to the son…the will and the intellect first reconciled, and then ordered the body to return to the father.
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
Why do you think I have a question for you?
I provided my position too many times already. I’m done with this topic.
When you put in your mantra ““God is always waiting for us”…(Pope Francis) quote…you actually undercut your own point.
God is waiting on us to say Yes…I’ve sinned against heaven and you…"
So you don’t even understand your own mantra.
I provided my position too many times already. I’m done with this topic.
When you put in your mantra ““God is always waiting for us”…(Pope Francis) quote…you actually undercut your own point.
God is waiting on us to say Yes…I’ve sinned against heaven and you…"
So you don’t even understand your own mantra.
G
graciew
Guest
This is no embellishment. Nor there is anywhere I would like to get in particular. It is Scripture.
He ran. Unconditionally . And clasped and kissed his son. And was moved.
Why did you pick the Father to identify with this time?
I tell you. I am waiting for our children arriving tomorrow and this week. And I cannot wait to hug them. That is all.
Who are we without the merciful gaze of the Father?
Not that one is up to such unconditional love.
Why did you pick the Father this time,Edward?
He ran. Unconditionally . And clasped and kissed his son. And was moved.
Why did you pick the Father to identify with this time?
I tell you. I am waiting for our children arriving tomorrow and this week. And I cannot wait to hug them. That is all.
Who are we without the merciful gaze of the Father?
Not that one is up to such unconditional love.
Why did you pick the Father this time,Edward?
Last edited:
E
Edward_H
Guest
He made his examination and decided to return. The father didn’t chase him down in foreign land.
The father waited as Pope Francis reminds that God waits for us.
I don’t give in to fuzzy wuzzy Father…God respects our free will. He gives us grace…and if we don’t respond, it’s our fault and our responsibility as Jesus so many times told us.
The father waited as Pope Francis reminds that God waits for us.
I don’t give in to fuzzy wuzzy Father…God respects our free will. He gives us grace…and if we don’t respond, it’s our fault and our responsibility as Jesus so many times told us.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
I am not asking to give in. Just to watch the scene.
And if you haven t read Henri Nouwen’s “Prodigal Son”, I think you will like it.
The Father was moved…and it is written there…
And the Son came back empty handed…
He helps us watch from different perspectives.
We could engage in conversation for a long time with the Prodigal Son.
And yes,I understand the waiting. Just that it looks sort of an active kind of waiting.
And if you haven t read Henri Nouwen’s “Prodigal Son”, I think you will like it.
The Father was moved…and it is written there…
And the Son came back empty handed…
He helps us watch from different perspectives.
We could engage in conversation for a long time with the Prodigal Son.
And yes,I understand the waiting. Just that it looks sort of an active kind of waiting.
Last edited:
- Status