Tis_Bearself
Patron
“I can do whatever I want” is pretty much the first step to Hell. I’d be careful with that if I were you. Remember Crowley was the big advocate of “do what thou wilt”.
Is "Amoris Laetitia" as dangerous to Church teaching as some claim?
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You’d be surprised. People who actually don’t have sex tend to not go around announcing it because others ridicule them and in addition it’s nobody else’s darn business whether a couple is having sex or not.
C
CatholicGearSolid
Guest
The visible gap I’m mentioning is the gap between their beliefs:
For example, Pope Francis suddenly decide to officially allow communion for those in a state of deadly sin. Many faithful Catholics would then come to accept this as the new official “view” of the Catholic Church. Other Catholics would see that this new “tolerance” is heretic: It contradicts what God AND the Catholic Church always stood for. You’d then have two sorts of Catholics:
Catholics faithful to the Catholic Church’s core teachings (vs) Catholics faithful to Pope Francis’s new ideology
You are right when you say that no one but God can know what is in a person’s heart.
But how is this relevant? We’re not talking about who goes to heaven or hell here.
(end of example)
Pope Benedict said it himself: “The Church is on the verge of capsizing.”
Of course, nothing is certain yet, but if the pope SEES what his ambiguity creates among the faithful, he WILL answer the Correctio Filialis. If he doesn’t, it could mean two things: He either can’t see the crisis he created, or he wanted to create this crisis. As a Catholic, I truly hope he didn’t see the crisis… but then who’s hiding it from him? Keep in mind that political groups formed in the Vatican: Liberals and Traditionalists.
Pope Francis favours Liberals for key positions. I guess it explains the uncorrected ambiguity.
For example, Pope Francis suddenly decide to officially allow communion for those in a state of deadly sin. Many faithful Catholics would then come to accept this as the new official “view” of the Catholic Church. Other Catholics would see that this new “tolerance” is heretic: It contradicts what God AND the Catholic Church always stood for. You’d then have two sorts of Catholics:
Catholics faithful to the Catholic Church’s core teachings (vs) Catholics faithful to Pope Francis’s new ideology
You are right when you say that no one but God can know what is in a person’s heart.
But how is this relevant? We’re not talking about who goes to heaven or hell here.
(end of example)
Pope Benedict said it himself: “The Church is on the verge of capsizing.”
Of course, nothing is certain yet, but if the pope SEES what his ambiguity creates among the faithful, he WILL answer the Correctio Filialis. If he doesn’t, it could mean two things: He either can’t see the crisis he created, or he wanted to create this crisis. As a Catholic, I truly hope he didn’t see the crisis… but then who’s hiding it from him? Keep in mind that political groups formed in the Vatican: Liberals and Traditionalists.
Pope Francis favours Liberals for key positions. I guess it explains the uncorrected ambiguity.
G
graciew
Guest
Poor Pope Emertitus…such a kind heart would not even dream of referring to his own Pope …
But here again, this is underestimating not only one but two Popes.
And also note the difference between filial and fraternal.
Anyway, your post was for Mr Newton ,just that it is hard to let this pass about both persons …
J
jas84173
Guest
I still think there was something shady about how he resigned . He was a conservative. He seemed a Pope who would stay in office until death. Not resign as only one other Pope in history did. Pope Francis I could see but not Benedict XVl. Something was off about that whole thing.
G
graciew
Guest
Do not take my word,read his.
I know it sounds as if I had "shares "on the sale of this book…I keep recommending it…but I liked it a lot: Last Testament, Peter Seewald and Pope Benedict XVI ,interview style in his own words.
I know it sounds as if I had "shares "on the sale of this book…I keep recommending it…but I liked it a lot: Last Testament, Peter Seewald and Pope Benedict XVI ,interview style in his own words.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Whether on is in an actual state of deadly sin or not may not be so easily determined by externals. There is an inherent judgement that should be avoided. As a practice, this cannot be done, at least usually, which is why we have tribunals, and why Pope Francis did not actually say the words you accredited to him here.
This issue is beyond me, but not so far that I do not understand that the Pope must be right on it. More accurately, the Pope is not wrong. He may be acting imprudently, or brilliantly. Time will tell, but it will tell by those who are in the position of the younger brother (the prodigal son). I do not doubt he is acting in their interest. I hope he does not lose too many older brothers.
On one hand, we have those who might try and take advantage of the situation, trying to receive communion when they cannot. I hope holy priests will be able to mitigate this problem. On the other hand, we have those that will resent the grace others receive, I hope they lack their phylacteries.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I wouldn’t see that parable as highly apt. The older brother acted out of a mean spirit. Those perplexed by parts of AL appear to have more proper motives - they fear it is theologically wrong. I agree there could be some of the “mean spirit” ilk.
Last edited:
C
CatholicGearSolid
Guest
I know he never “said” these things, that’s why I said For example and end of example
My mistake, I should’ve made it clearer.
Although, the issue here is that he never clarified his thoughts on many of these subjects.
What makes it even worst, is that he fired some of those (cardinals) who simply asked for an honest clarification (To avoid what we’re doing right not). What justifies this behaviour? Every answers to this question are bad news.
C
CatholicGearSolid
Guest
This is already happening, I have seen it in most Churches in my country (Canada).
Priests aren’t doing their jobs properly, and this is one of the reasons why the Pope should be specific.
The Vatican should constantly remind to every dioceses the importance of confession, of the Sacraments, etc, with a strong decisive voice which will leave no doubts, and no room for reformists do twist the pope’s words.
Currently, millions of Catholics receive communion in a state of deadly sin, and they don’t even know it, because it isn’t taught to them anymore. I was like them a few years back, but thank God my family is aware of those things.
I don’t think anyone who understand how God’s mercy works, would resent the grace others receive. In fact, they should be happy for them, and thankful to God for being just. Although, I am sure they would resent the lack of actions taken to prevent these poor souls from sining, even without knowing.
Last edited:
T
the_coppersmith
Guest
So…he is a liar? Because he stated that it was for health reasons, over and again.
If there’s more than that, then he lied.
I like to think that there’s hope for everyone to get to heaven and that Popes don’t lie. It’s not very positive or encouraging to do otherwise. Not without solid proof.
S
StarMapp
Guest
Sexual abstinence if one does not intend to marry. In other words if sex is a must, then one needs to marry. This discipline is to rightfully confine the sexual act in it’s proper place and purpose as intended by our Lord, in a Holy Marriage. Further, the Catholic marriage is also the only place that Sacrament is sanctioned.
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Sexual abstinence? That’s how we are going to win people back to the Church? I can’t believe I am reading such middle age philosophy.
J
jas84173
Guest
Biblical? King David sure made it biblical.
P
pnewton
Guest
You may well be correct. Understand, I know no one to whom this is an issue. My only interaction is with people here. It is only based on my limited interaction that I see more resentment and pettiness than theology. I have had some theological discussion here without the rhetoric, but it is the exception.
P
PJM
Guest
It absolutely and factually is: Germany, Malta and Argentina ALL PROVE it [may God have Mercy on them]
Patrick
Patrick
S
StarMapp
Guest
Ans 263, RadioReplies online
… Instinctively the world hates and fears the Catholic Church, which will make no compromise , but insists upon the fullness of Christian doctrine, comfortable or uncomfortable. She insists upon intellectual obedience of faith; disciplinary submission of the will; the impossibility of divorce and re-marriage; the iniquity of birth-control by evil means; the inadequacy of a merely secular education. Her repetition of Christ’s axiom , “Deny thyself; take up thy cross; and follow Me”, interferes too much with the comfort of men. If Christianity demanded merely the admission of new religious doctrines, men would not object to it. But since it imposes moral obligations difficult for human nature, I am not surprised that men refuse it in it’s original austere form when they are offered a less exacting substitute with the assurance it is just as good.
Frs. Rumble & Carty
… Instinctively the world hates and fears the Catholic Church, which will make no compromise , but insists upon the fullness of Christian doctrine, comfortable or uncomfortable. She insists upon intellectual obedience of faith; disciplinary submission of the will; the impossibility of divorce and re-marriage; the iniquity of birth-control by evil means; the inadequacy of a merely secular education. Her repetition of Christ’s axiom , “Deny thyself; take up thy cross; and follow Me”, interferes too much with the comfort of men. If Christianity demanded merely the admission of new religious doctrines, men would not object to it. But since it imposes moral obligations difficult for human nature, I am not surprised that men refuse it in it’s original austere form when they are offered a less exacting substitute with the assurance it is just as good.
Frs. Rumble & Carty
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
Sin is sin.
True responsibility is not doing an act that you are not yet ready for.
You should only ever have sex with one girl, your wife, after being properly married.
And you should trust in God to open and close the womb as He sees fit.
Coitus interruptus or contraceptives are not allowed.
No matter what your teachers say, you can in cat control yourself. You can in fact not have sex all the time.
When God gives you a child accept it.
Not every thing in the Bible is approved of, similar to how not everything in a history text book is morally approved of.
Lot’s daughters raped him, for instance.
True responsibility is not doing an act that you are not yet ready for.
You should only ever have sex with one girl, your wife, after being properly married.
And you should trust in God to open and close the womb as He sees fit.
Coitus interruptus or contraceptives are not allowed.
No matter what your teachers say, you can in cat control yourself. You can in fact not have sex all the time.
When God gives you a child accept it.
Not every thing in the Bible is approved of, similar to how not everything in a history text book is morally approved of.
Lot’s daughters raped him, for instance.
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
To say this is “middle ages theology” IMO is to embrace relativism.
The truth is society has moved radically from the place it once was. As Christians most folks can see clearly that brothels are wrong for the Johns and the Prostitutes. We can see clearly that a hook-up culture where folks go for one-night stand to one-night stand is wrong. We can see clearly that abortion is wrong.
What we missed was the errors associated with sex for reasons sex was never intended and the deification of sex.
We MIGHT still know that pornography is wrong, but sex for entertainment on nightly TV is fine. We MIGHT still know that prostitutions is wrong, but selling of products on commercials is just another purpose of sex. We might know that indiscriminate movement from one sex partner to the next is wrong, but we place so little importance on marriage that the indiscriminate movement from one marriage to the next is just fine.
The worship of sex means that we cannot tell others that their sexual desires and appetites should be controlled. The deification of sex probably makes this universally true, but it is especially true if I do not share another’s sexual appetites. Who am I to judge them (it is all relative).
The true teachings concerning sex have been so muddied that you post on a Catholic board something that is clearly radically flawed from a reasoned Catholic perspective.
The truth is, God created sex as procreative and unitive. Its purpose was and is to produce children within a union of man and woman. Human children are born far more helpless than are other infants and need parents to care for them. Human sociology is far more complex than that of other species and the presence of a mother AND father in this process is radically important. To remove either the procreative or the unitive aspect of sex is to frustrate its true purpose.
The consequences of the perversion of sex and the deification of sex are now played out in our streets, courts, hospitals and homes. Generations being raised on network TV absent clear teachings on these matters CANNOT see what was once clear (clear doesn’t mean followed universally, but clear still) to most members of the human race.
I would recommend reading Humanae vitae. If you don’t want to do that, this from a non-Catholic (and perhaps even of value to a non-theist), Rabbi Sacks, is still quite compelling:
rabbisacks.org
Charity, TOm
The truth is society has moved radically from the place it once was. As Christians most folks can see clearly that brothels are wrong for the Johns and the Prostitutes. We can see clearly that a hook-up culture where folks go for one-night stand to one-night stand is wrong. We can see clearly that abortion is wrong.
What we missed was the errors associated with sex for reasons sex was never intended and the deification of sex.
We MIGHT still know that pornography is wrong, but sex for entertainment on nightly TV is fine. We MIGHT still know that prostitutions is wrong, but selling of products on commercials is just another purpose of sex. We might know that indiscriminate movement from one sex partner to the next is wrong, but we place so little importance on marriage that the indiscriminate movement from one marriage to the next is just fine.
The worship of sex means that we cannot tell others that their sexual desires and appetites should be controlled. The deification of sex probably makes this universally true, but it is especially true if I do not share another’s sexual appetites. Who am I to judge them (it is all relative).
The true teachings concerning sex have been so muddied that you post on a Catholic board something that is clearly radically flawed from a reasoned Catholic perspective.
The truth is, God created sex as procreative and unitive. Its purpose was and is to produce children within a union of man and woman. Human children are born far more helpless than are other infants and need parents to care for them. Human sociology is far more complex than that of other species and the presence of a mother AND father in this process is radically important. To remove either the procreative or the unitive aspect of sex is to frustrate its true purpose.
The consequences of the perversion of sex and the deification of sex are now played out in our streets, courts, hospitals and homes. Generations being raised on network TV absent clear teachings on these matters CANNOT see what was once clear (clear doesn’t mean followed universally, but clear still) to most members of the human race.
I would recommend reading Humanae vitae. If you don’t want to do that, this from a non-Catholic (and perhaps even of value to a non-theist), Rabbi Sacks, is still quite compelling:
The Complementarity of Man and Woman | Video | The Rabbi Sacks Legacy
Watch The Complementarity of Man and Woman from The Rabbi Sacks Legacy.
rabbisacks.org
Charity, TOm
L
Lara
Guest
You just need to be disciplined. Your argument could extend to married people, as in, how can a man not have an affair on his wife when there are so many beautiful women walking around waiting for a opportunity to have sex? What kind of middle age philosophy is that?
Answer: by being disciplined.
There is nothing unrealistic about Natural Family Planning. The trick is to actually study it. Most of the time, it’s taught for free. But even if you had to pay for it, you should. It’s one of the most valuable pieces of knowledge people can have. Aside from giving you the information you need to decide about having sex within marriage, it also gives health clues to women. It makes you as a man better appreciate women. Many men haven’t a clue about women’s cycles and believe any myth.
Rather than having conversations about evil things such as abortion with your girlfriend, you can have conversations about things that are good, such as building up one another, having a family, etc… All discipline is meant to be freeing.
Answer: by being disciplined.
There is nothing unrealistic about Natural Family Planning. The trick is to actually study it. Most of the time, it’s taught for free. But even if you had to pay for it, you should. It’s one of the most valuable pieces of knowledge people can have. Aside from giving you the information you need to decide about having sex within marriage, it also gives health clues to women. It makes you as a man better appreciate women. Many men haven’t a clue about women’s cycles and believe any myth.
Rather than having conversations about evil things such as abortion with your girlfriend, you can have conversations about things that are good, such as building up one another, having a family, etc… All discipline is meant to be freeing.
Last edited:
- Status