M
marthax2
Guest
- Status
M
marthax2
Guest
C
CatholicCrusade
Guest
The invincibly ignorance are not guilty for what they don’t know, but that cannot remove the necessity of Baptism, for it is the ONLY means for the remission of Original Sin.
The Council of Trent is clear. Canons on Baptism:
Can V. If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathem.
Can II. If anyone saith that TRUE AND NATURAL **WATER **is not necessary for Baptism and thus wrests into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost”, let him be anathema.
There is not exemption from the necessity of Baptism. From Holy See:
Inculpable Ignorance
****40. Which Protestants are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other great sins?
Those who are Protestants without their fault and who never had an opportunity of knowing better, are not guilty of the sin of heresy; but if they do not live up to the dictates of their conscience, they will be lost, not on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed.
41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.
If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, “Out of the Church there is no salvation,” we must remember:
a) That there are four great truths2 of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;
b) That no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;
**c) **That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;
d) That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.
Moreover, Blessed Pius IX himself declared very clearly:
“We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 52:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1) To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch*.*”
The Council of Trent is clear. Canons on Baptism:
Can V. If anyone saith that Baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation, let him be anathem.
Can II. If anyone saith that TRUE AND NATURAL **WATER **is not necessary for Baptism and thus wrests into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost”, let him be anathema.
There is not exemption from the necessity of Baptism. From Holy See:
Inculpable Ignorance
****40. Which Protestants are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other great sins?
Those who are Protestants without their fault and who never had an opportunity of knowing better, are not guilty of the sin of heresy; but if they do not live up to the dictates of their conscience, they will be lost, not on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed.
41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.
If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, “Out of the Church there is no salvation,” we must remember:
a) That there are four great truths2 of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;
b) That no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;
**c) **That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;
d) That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.
Moreover, Blessed Pius IX himself declared very clearly:
“We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 52:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1) To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch*.*”
R
rayne89
Guest
I would say some are the list are mortal, some venial of course there could be all kinds of variables here as far as knowledge, full consent ect… And a few are really a stretch as far as sin at all.
But ok now - exposing your elbows is a mortal sin?
But ok now - exposing your elbows is a mortal sin?
M
marthax2
Guest
This is part of a Church document obtained at www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
about the teaching of Fr. Feeney:
LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. …
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. …
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. …
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
about the teaching of Fr. Feeney:
LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. …
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. …
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. …
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
T
TheGarg
Guest
Oh really,
**Matthew 16:18-20 (New International Version)[widely accepted by protestants] **
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:18-20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23691b”)] will not overcome it.c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ
Here is Christ telling us what the Church says goes, period…so now are you going to argue with Jesus!
G
Gunner
Guest
Why struggle against a list. It helps an examination of conscience. The old Catechism was list style, it worked for years to help inform. Maybe such a list needs to be refined, but Black and White is what this world needs right now. Sin has been forgotten to a large extent.
Many comments even in this forum, where we know better, are trying to justify Sin and give excuses for escape clauses etc. Let us face it, the Benchmark for Sin is high. Why do you think Great Saints over the ages mortified themselves, some even going to live like Hermits (To escape many sins and temptations).
I feel you are looking for a licence to avoid certain issues. You are TOO well informed for that. Covering up for modesty is no bad thing as it could be responsible for others to sin. If exposing onself continously such as walking around scantly dressed without regard for others disposition I feel is grave and one does not care if it leads them to sin or not. I wonder how many Saints wore bikini’s and thongs.
God Bless
C
casper1949
Guest
*]The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified. (De fide.)
*]The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith. (De fide.)
*]Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present. (De fide.)
The State of Justification
*]Sanctifying Grace is a created supernatural gift really distinct from God. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
*]Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural state of being which is infused by God, and which permanently inheres in the soul. (Sent. certa.)
*]Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but a real accident, which inheres in the soul-substance. (Sent. certa.)
*]Sanctifying grace is really distinct from charity. (Sent. communior.)
*]Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature. (Sent. certa.)
*]Sanctifying grace sanctifies the soul. (De fide.)
*]Sanctifying grace bestows supernatural beauty on the soul. (Sent. communis.)
*]Sanctifying grace makes the just man a friend of God. (De fide.)
*]Sanctifying grace makes the just man a child of God and gives him a claim to the inheritance of Heaven. (De fide.)
*]Sanctifying grace makes the just man a Temple of the Holy Ghost. (Sent. certa.)
*]The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace. (De fide)
*]The moral virtues also are infused with sanctifying grace. (Sent. communis.)
*]The Gifts of the Holy Ghost also are infused with sanctifying grace. (Sent. communis.)
*]Without special Divine Revelation no one can know with the certainty of faith, if he be in the state of grace. (De fide.)
*]The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just. (De fide.)
*]Grace can be increased by good works. (De fide.)
*]The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous [mortal, serious] sin. (De fide.)
*]The loss of sanctifying grace always involves the loss of Charity.
The Consequences or Fruits of Justification or the Doctrine Concerning Merit
*]By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. (De fide.)
*]A just man merits for himself through each good work an increas of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory. (De fide.)
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
I struggle against a list because there seems to me that too many people get the impression that Rome is about laws. Do X, Y, and Z or do not do X,Y, Z. They confuse this with the heart of the faith. The heart of the faith is love. I believe Jesus wants our hearts pointed at His Sacred Heart.
People get hung up on conversion because they see Rome as just a bunch of laws and their shouty churches as the true one because they have an experience there.
I think trying to make something as significant and important as a sacrament into a list is wrong. You have to examine with your heart. Confession must be promoted as the spiritual experience or tears and remorse and repentance that it truly is, not a supermarket checklist.
Our church has the deepest spirituality of all because She is the bride of Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit. Conviction comes as a gift from God, not from a list. We should not reduce the sacrament to an expedition to the grocery store.
That said, if you feel you need conviction on an issue, Do research, Do catechesis, research (gasp) an internet list, seek advice. We’re all in this together! Get washed clean!
Merry Christmas!
My 2 cents (yet again)
G
Gunner
Guest
Are you struggling against any list or what is on the list. Ours is a DOGMATIC faith with absolute morals. This is the strength of our Church. Why do you think people struggle coming to it. THEY WILL NOT SERVE or find it very hard to. It is beneath them. Who else would not do that?I struggle against a list because there seems to me that too many people get the impression that Rome is about laws. Do X, Y, and Z or do not do X,Y, Z. They confuse this with the heart of the faith. The heart of the faith is love. I believe Jesus wants our hearts pointed at His Sacred Heart.
People get hung up on conversion because they see Rome as just a bunch of laws and their shouty churches as the true one because they have an experience there.
I think trying to make something as significant and important as a sacrament into a list is wrong. You have to examine with your heart. Confession must be promoted as the spiritual experience or tears and remorse and repentance that it truly is, not a supermarket checklist.
Our church has the deepest spirituality of all because She is the bride of Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit. Conviction comes as a gift from God, not from a list. We should not reduce the sacrament to an expedition to the grocery store.
That said, if you feel you need conviction on an issue, Do research, Do catechesis, research (gasp) an internet list, seek advice. We’re all in this together! Get washed clean!
Merry Christmas!
My 2 cents (yet again)
Our conscience is not about feelings, we can all justify anything on that premise. We all need to act responsibly against a clear and reasonable dogmatic benchmark. I accept there is 1% of grey for our consciences to deal with but 99% of how we act is either sin or not, plain and simple.
God Bless
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Yes, the church - not the apostle Peter and a successor named “pope”. Peter is not the church - the pope (although he is a great guy) is not the church. We collectively are the church. Friend, I woudn’t argue with Jesus at all. But, then you or the magisterium or the pope are not Jesus are you? To get caught up in this dogma based on one Scripture is irresponsible at best.
Believe me, I’ve been around the forums long enough to hear all the arguments for/against the Roman Catholic Church. These assertions are not new to me. Authority is at the root of the issue between the Roman Catholic Church and other churches. It is useless to continue in such a dialogue.
For dialogue to truly take place - each person must come to the table with an open mind and willingness to listen. Most here are not interested in true dialogue. We cannot have true dialogue with each other either if we are not open.
I wish you peace and happiness this Christmas season!
Peace…
J
johnq
Guest
ahimsaman72 
God bless you, I pray that I recieve half of your zeal.
ahimsaman72:
purple = my own words
God
God bless you, I pray that I recieve half of your zeal.
emphasis added in red or underlined
purple = my own words
God
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
I struggle with any list outside of the magisterium. There are absolute morals, applied to subjective everyday situations. I’m against the mindset that you can follow a list to fulfill your service to Christ.
I would argue that no mathematical ratio can cover what we fail to do, or how we put our own selves before Christ which should also be confessed. You cannot put our human existence down to a list. Moreover a private list, not under Christ’s promise to Peter strikes me as something that should be approached as a utility only and with skepticism.
I am not against lists as much as I am pro-catechesis. I use an examination of conscience form myself. I am leary though of a conversation that seeks to reduce this sacrament that Christ gave us to a list. Genuine repentence is key.
Merry Christmas!
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
First, I was answering the poster who used the Matthew quote to establish the church/Peter connection. He seemed to equate them as being the same thing. And you propose the same thing. To argue with Jesus is to argue with Peter and the Scripture verse Mt. 16:18 which I completely deny. Isn’t that what you are saying also? If not, I apologize. This seems to be the case.ahimsaman72
God bless you, I pray that I recieve half of your zeal.
emphasis added in red or underlined
purple = my own words
God
If this is true then why the misrepresentation? It is not Church teaching that Peter / Pope equals the Church. We can also agree that authority is not just based upon one verse quoting Jesus. (Although that would be sufficient.) We have been here long enough to realize the bible, tradition, Church and common sense points to an established authority in His Church. Will we keep arguing with Jesus?
It is your church’s teaching that everyone must submit to the Roman Pontiff for salvation - is it not? Is it not your church’s teaching that when the Pope speaks on faith and morals he is speaking on behalf of Christ? Yes, this is true. So, my summation is correct. Your church asserts these things.
Then why are you here? Please do not take this as an attack, I truly want to know. Yes, I agree authority is the primary issue.
I have come here because I used to think I wanted to convert. I also wanted to learn more about the Catholic faith “from the horses mouth”. What I found was not what should be. I found dogma that was unacceptable. I found many things contrary to good reason and Scriptures.
I remain here because I enjoy the discussions. There are many here who I can have dialogue with. There are many more with whom I cannot.
You must remember there is also a “non-Catholic religion” forum where I hang out - so considering free-will and opportunity - I stay and discuss with those whom I can relate to and share insights with.
Everyone believes they have the truth - Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims. The difference is when one religion says it has the ONLY truth available in the universe. That’s where I find problems. This is true of Christianity and Islam which makes dialogue difficult if almost impossible. This should not be the case.
Peace…
G
Gunner
Guest
How can you examine your conscience, if not against something, this would be meaningless. You keep fighting lists. The Creed is also a list/statement of belief, are you against that also as your conscience can decide what you should or should not believe in.
No Catholic Christianity is not mathematical but it is ORDERED e.g. 10 Commandments, 5 Church Precepts, 7 Deadly Sins, 40 Days in the desert, 40 Days of Lent, 12 Apostles, 1 Church, 1 Creed, 1 Saviour, 1 God, 3 Person (Trinity), 1 Pope, 7 Sacraments, Bishop - Priest- Deacon. etc etc etc
God Bless and Merry XMAS
M
marthax2
Guest
Peter is not the Church, neither are his successors. The Church does not make this claim. The Church does say that Peter (or any pope) is the head of the visible Church on earth and that Jesus gave him this authority. The pope speaks for Jesus because Jesus said that whatever he binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven. When we obey the pope we obey Jesus. (His opinions on matters other than faith and morals are not binding on us.) Is there any other interpretation of, “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”?
We collectively are the body, but we are not the head of the Church. A headless church is a church that can change its beliefs, and thus have no claim to truth, and that can split up into thousands of different churches.
Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is inerrant. God need say something only once for it to be true.
T
TheGarg
Guest
Based on One Scripture??? are you serious??? How many will it take to convince you???
“Sorry God, but your just gonna have to tell me two or three times how you want things done, and it would help if you phrase it differently each time.”
This kind of recklessness doesn’t deserve a reply, but I will reiterate.
The Church, as Christ established it, is lead by the pope[papacy], of which Peter was the first, and which Christ said to him
“18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:18-19;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23691b”)] will not overcome it.c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;”.
“I will give YOU[Peter = rock = foundation of the Church]”, **not the church members **[including you], not the other apostles, but Peter. Thus making Peter the Leader of the Church, who submits fully to Christ.
Christ did not start a democracy, and to treat His Church as such is evil. I SUBMIT to the Church and the Church SUBMITS to Christ.
People need leaders, Christ knew that, what you, and Protestantism suggest is anarchy and heresy.
If you study long enough, you will find the Truth.
Then lower your pride, and LISTEN.
I wish the same for you! Merry Christmas and Christ Love to your and yours.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
== In that case, “holding hands & prolonged kissing” would be “proximate occasion” of mortal sin - but not a mortal sin itself.
That list is hopelessly over-simple. It is certainly no replacement for a wise confessor and a god knowledger of moral theology and a god knowledge of oneself. It’s a good way of making Catholics into Pharisees too
Amarischuk is dead right IMO
==
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
4 marks:
== One reason that this list is so unhelpful ==Conclusion: Just about everything can be a mortal sin under the right set of conditions.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
== If we could keep the entire Law - the Gospel of grace would not be necessary. Legalism is in a strange way easier than the freedom brought by Jesus. But it’s not the Gospel. ==I think Paul’s words (given him by God) should remind us of humility and the fact that we may claim righteous ways but our hearts are not in the right place.
Romans 2:21-23
This brings me back to keeping the whole law. I repeat - there’s no one on this forum or outside this forum who can keep the commandments - not as they are given in this self-righteous list. Although I believe folks here have their hearts in the right place - especially you, Gunner - this still seems like legalism to me. But, what do I know? I’m just a schismatic protestant who dabbles in Buddhism.
- Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
- Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
- Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Peace…
- Status