I am totally lost. My version does not have a “therefore”? What came at the Reformation? What does the “therefore” have to do with vs. 8 chap 4?The first verse of 2 Timothy 4 contains the word “therefore”, I have heard in numerous sermons that if a chapter starts with a verse containing the word “therefore” we should read further back to the preceding chapter to see what the word is there for!
Have a look at chapter 3 and read it stopping at verse 8 in chapter 4.
I am sure the Catholic Church would teach that this time came at the Reformation, correct me if I am wrong. We need to ask ourselves seriously, did this time manifest itself in the first centuries of Church history and as a result we have Catholicism? A serious seeker would look at both propositions. Is it possible that both propositions are correct?
Interesting, yes I bet you are confused. I have four different translations here at my house and only 2 have the word “therefore”. One has “and so” iinstead.I am totally lost. My version does not have a “therefore”? What came at the Reformation? What does the “therefore” have to do with vs. 8 chap 4?
8Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. 2 Tim. 4:8
I agree the greek “oun” can be translated as “then” or “therefore”. Either way, i don’t think its wrong to separate chapter 3 from the context.The first verse of 2 Timothy 4 contains the word “therefore”, I have heard in numerous sermons that if a chapter starts with a verse containing the word “therefore” we should read further back to the preceding chapter to see what the word is there for!
Have a look at chapter 3 and read it stopping at verse 8 in chapter 4.
I am sure the Catholic Church would teach that this time came at the Reformation, correct me if I am wrong. We need to ask ourselves seriously, did this time manifest itself in the first centuries of Church history and as a result we have Catholicism? A serious seeker would look at both propositions. Is it possible that both propositions are correct?
Let’s see if Wannano agrees, but here’s what I found:I agree the greek “oun” can be translated as “then” or “therefore”. Either way, i don’t think its wrong to separate chapter 3 from the context.
Im not sure when Paul is prophesying this “spirit” befalls on the Church. He does state: “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.” Maybe he is revealing the fact that things escalade to a worse state over time? We both know men have been guilty of sins before and after the Reformation. The charge that some
“having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings”
seems to suggest leaders not in Communion with the whole, or teachers who appeal to individuals, rather than the whole Church That’s my personal thought.
What is interesting about chapter 3, is the reference:
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith
We don’t see these men named in Scripture. They may be the Magicians. Any knowledge of these two men?
This is one of the earliest references to Sacred Tradition, which was held on the same level as the Scriptures.I agree the greek “oun” can be translated as “then” or “therefore”. Either way, i don’t think its wrong to separate chapter 3 from the context.
Im not sure when Paul is prophesying this “spirit” befalls on the Church. He does state: “But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.” Maybe he is revealing the fact that things escalade to a worse state over time? We both know men have been guilty of sins before and after the Reformation. The charge that some
“having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings”
seems to suggest leaders not in Communion with the whole, or teachers who appeal to individuals, rather than the whole Church That’s my personal thought.
What is interesting about chapter 3, is the reference:
As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith
We don’t see these men named in Scripture. They may be the Magicians. Any knowledge of these two men?
Thank you sir. It is vital to point out that what is the rule for the American faithful is not necessarily the rule elsewhere.One has to look at what Blessed Paul VI mandated.
In Paenitemini, the operative document, he decreed:
*Therefore, the following is declared and established:
I. 1. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.
II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of “Grande Quaresima” (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance* binds gravely.
- The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized according to the following norms:
That is the criteria that both moral theologians and confessors would apply relative to the assessment of acquisition of subjective moral guilt.
It must also be remembered that there are countries where this forum reaches that have significantly different penitential observances from, for example, those in the United States, and this by provision of their conference of bishops…provisions granted the recognitio of the Holy See.
What seems to ignored with these type of answers is the sacrament of Reconciliation.Whether someone goes to Hell is a decision between God and the individual isn’t it? If the person lived a good life according to the Church and to God, would he really go to Hell for that one indiscretion?
As Father Mitch Pacwa on EWTN once said, “That is a management decision, and we are only in sales.”
Who gave you the authority to dictate what the church should do?Yes. I know.
It has everything to do with spirituality - which has been my point all along.
It has NOTHING to do with eliminating meat on Fridays (or other holy days).
THIS is my whole point!
If the church is to teach fasting, then it should teach biblical fasting, which is far more than eliminating a food product…
GG
And trolls who state false information about what the Church teaches…ok.Heh, so we can go straight to hell if we knowingly ate meat on Good Friday while someone who is divorced and remarried, which Jesus says is adultery, and having relations can receive Communion. Ok…
Who’s the troll now?And trolls who state false information about what the Church teaches…ok.
And do you know what are the conditions which these parishioners must meet, in order to receive?Who’s the troll now?
WITH THEIR SHOCKING publication of new norms for permitting divorced and remarried Catholics to return to the reception of Holy Communion, the bishops of Malta have shown how great errors can grow from tiny seeds.
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-footnote-that-roared
“On Friday the bishops of Malta became the first to formally permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion even if they’re not living chastely.”
- Catholic Answers
While I agree we should not call each other trolls, unless perhaps repeatedly obvious posts, your post seems to be a bit of a cheap shot. This proposal to practice Communion for divorced and married is both highly controversial AND requires personal pastoral permission (meeting certain criteria).Who’s the troll now?
As it forever has been. The Pope has simply made public what has been going on in private forever and ever.While I agree we should not call each other trolls, unless perhaps repeatedly obvious posts, your post seems to be a bit of a cheap shot. This proposal to practice Communion for divorced and married is both highly controversial AND requires personal pastoral permission (meeting certain criteria).
Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful
Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
So…something founded on sacred Scripture, from the words of Jesus Himself, which was presented as binding by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, can be modified while a practice and discipline, such as abstaining from meat on Good Friday, which is not found in Scripture, is a mortal sin and you can be punished in hell forever for that? Get real."At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, “founded on sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to holy communion.” The structure of the exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.”
"If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351)And do you know what are the conditions which these parishioners must meet, in order to receive?
Is a confession of wrong doing necessary? Because that, in itself would make it significantly different than the “meat on friday” mortal sin.
Btw, I am not endorsing Communion for the D&R at all. I personally am opposed to it. However, when there are the situations as are being proposed, I think it is understood to be different. But I personally believe sexual relations must stop between the invalid, until a valid sacramental union is possible (death of former spouse).
Yes, my friend. Trust me, this is the position I take. And is the reason for its controversy. But this is probably not the thread to launch into that.So…something founded on sacred Scripture, which was presented as binding, can be modified while a practice and discipline, such as abstaining from meat on Good Friday, which is not found in Scripture is a mortal sin? Get real.
This thread, many months old, in which I participated, is being derailed from a question on Friday abstinence into yet another critique of Their Excellencies, The Bishops of Malta.Who’s the troll now?
WITH THEIR SHOCKING publication of new norms for permitting divorced and remarried Catholics to return to the reception of Holy Communion, the bishops of Malta have shown how great errors can grow from tiny seeds.
catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-footnote-that-roared
“On Friday the bishops of Malta became the first to formally permit divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion even if they’re not living chastely.”
- Catholic Answers
This thread, many months old, in which I participated, is being derailed from a question on Friday abstinence into yet another critique of Their Excellencies, The Bishops of Malta.
This derailment should be referred for immediate moderator intervention for multiple violation of forum rules.
Let’s see what Catholic Answers says:
Which brings us back to Malta, that tiny Mediterranean island that stood as an indomitable bulwark against the Turks centuries ago but now is the first casualty in the war on Catholic marriage teaching. Criteria for the Application of Chapter VIII off Amoris Laetitia, promulgated by Malta’s two bishops, lays out an official pathway for the divorced and remarried to receive Communion. In so doing it mouths many of the arguments put forward by Cardinal Walter Kasper and other bishops and theologians who after years of agitating for change found themselves in a new position of influence prior to the synods and the publication of AL…
The importance of this (bogusly sourced) footnote cannot be overestimated. The entire project of those in favor of overhauling Church practice—and, in tail-wagging-dog fashion, teaching—regarding divorce and remarriage depends on it…
The bishops of Malta, on the strength of footnote 329, are now saying that circumstances might do just that. Because not having sex with someone may be impossible, adultery and Holy Communion are now compatible…
What an appallingly defeatist idea, and one that is without analog in Catholic morality. Where else do bishops teach that it’s impossible to do what’s right? In what other area does the Church offer people this kind of moral compromise?..
In such examples the absurdity is thick. But according to footnote 329 and the bishops of Malta, apparently not when it comes to divorce and remarriage. My earnest prayer is that the pope will repudiate this document, affirm the traditional pastoral discipline regarding marriage and divorce, and help the Catholic flock view all of the gospel’s moral prescriptions not as mere ideals or options among many, but as the Narrow Way: difficult for fallen man but definitely possible by God’s grace.
Sorry! If we’re going to be discussing what constitutes a mortal sin, then this is definitely part of the discussion now.