T
tafan2
Guest
I find the OP one of the worse caricatures of the supposed conservative/progressive Catholic divide I have ever read.
- Status
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Think of it this way:
Someone severs their jugular artery. Does the doctor instantly give them a blood transfusion? No. The person cannot benefit from the transfusion due to their state. Instead, the doctor closes the wound. Then, and only then, can the person make full use of the blood transfusion.
The Church is the doctor. The patient is the sinner. The wound is mortal sin. The blood transfusion is the Eucharist. The closing of the wound is Confession.
Someone severs their jugular artery. Does the doctor instantly give them a blood transfusion? No. The person cannot benefit from the transfusion due to their state. Instead, the doctor closes the wound. Then, and only then, can the person make full use of the blood transfusion.
The Church is the doctor. The patient is the sinner. The wound is mortal sin. The blood transfusion is the Eucharist. The closing of the wound is Confession.
N
Nigel7
Guest
Terribly presumptive and dangerous.
How could you possibly know that by their committing sodomy and murder that these people made the “best choice”???
“Best choice”?? Saying such things sounds quite disordered and delusional, frankly.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I think you mean well and have good intentions; but, I assure you, this is not what the Church teaches. Our Blessed Lord welcomes all in many ways; e.g. spiritual communion, prayer, Mass w/out communion etc. etc. But Scripture and Tradition are very clear that we are not to partake in Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin. Judging whether someone is in that state is a whole different topic altogether.
G
goout
Guest
Church teaching, objectively speaking, by nature, cannot separate people.
People separate people. (I think your post clearly does that…)
It would be helpful if you simply referenced Church documents to illustrate your points. Otherwise you are pushing a progressive agenda in circles.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
How about just being a Catholic and following Church teaching instead of putting adjectives in front of Catholic and trying to twist long standing Church truths suit your political ideology?
V
Vico
Guest
They can both be true but others cannot determine the state of grace. The clergy must consider the objective state of excommunication or manifest grave sin, in administrating the sacraments. The faithful must observe the rule of reception only when in the state of grace, which they have to determine based upon their examination of conscience in conjunction with the teachings of the Church, and that they were absolved of all mortal sins.
Last edited:
P
ProgressiveCatholic
Guest
Here’s a summary of what I’m trying to say:
Paragraph 305 refers to those in “irregular” situations – a term often used to refer to the divorced and remarried – and says: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
A footnote (f351) adds: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’”
Paragraph 305 refers to those in “irregular” situations – a term often used to refer to the divorced and remarried – and says: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
A footnote (f351) adds: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’”
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Irregular situations that should be discerned not by the couple alone, but with the help of a good and holy priest, with the couple making every effort to rectify the irregular situation if possible.
But yes, Communion in irregular circumstances is possible.
In regards to your second point, spiritual medicine and nourishment do us no good if we’re spiritually dead (IE a state of mortal sin). For the Eucharist to be taken without incurring mortal sin, one must be in a state of grace- not out of a spirit of exclusion, but of protection.
But yes, Communion in irregular circumstances is possible.
In regards to your second point, spiritual medicine and nourishment do us no good if we’re spiritually dead (IE a state of mortal sin). For the Eucharist to be taken without incurring mortal sin, one must be in a state of grace- not out of a spirit of exclusion, but of protection.
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
Paul was a bishop. Next point?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Isn’t that the same with heaven too?
Or do only those without good intentions get there
.
Or do only those without good intentions get there
.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Funny, I’ve always found that those who want others to know they are in objective states of evil if they do certain things are usually conservative. Seems to go with the territory.
But I do not think people are objectively sinning by doing so.
But I do not think people are objectively sinning by doing so
.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I believe you really mean “when conscious of grave sin”.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
BY being involved in the AL discernment process of course.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Yes. Clumsy phrasing on my part.
P
ProgressiveCatholic
Guest
It might be the case that no human has ever committed a mortal sin, ever. The fact that something is possible doesn’t mean that it ever happened. Neither you, nor me, nor the Pope, nor Cardinal Sarah, can know for sure how God is seeing a certain person in their specific situation. No one knows if God holds anyone culpable for their sin. That is simply a Catholic fact.
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
So, I am more than willing to welcome everyone to come to the Eucharist with me because I give them all the benefit of the doubt.
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
So, I am more than willing to welcome everyone to come to the Eucharist with me because I give them all the benefit of the doubt.
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, he refers to those who are not fully culpable due to mitigating factors. Therefore the culpability for the material sin is partial or none.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Sodom and Gomorrah? Cain? Adam and Eve? All documented cases of God seeing and in some cases justly punishing a person.
But that must be tempered with concern for their soul, and education concerning mortal sin and reception of the Eucharist. We are our brother’s keeper.
IMO, the Confession line is too short for the Communion line to be that long, if you get my drift.
But I think we’ve come to a decent consensus.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
No, that contradicts the proclamation of Jesus Christ that some will be lost. See Catechism
Also John 17:
K
KMG
Guest
Correct. We do not know for sure WHO is in hell…but he know for certain there are souls in hell.
- Status