Pope says he's saddened by 'perfect' Catholics who despise others

[shockerfan]

I couldn’t care less where and what is written IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, PERIOD. . If Francis wants to excommunicate me because I say he is wrong, no big loss.

I would request a step back for a moment. There seems to be, IMHO, a misunderstanding of definitions and / or implications of those definitions.

In my experience, there is a difference between the definition of “right” as found in the constitution and the definition of “right” that is found in discussions about Church teaching.

When the Church says healthcare is a right, its a right in the same vein as water, food, shelter, clothing, etc. It does not mean that one person has the right to another persons time, talent or treasure for free.

A person cannot say “Since healthcare is a right, I don’t have to pay the doctor, or the hospital for services rendered”. I have always interpreted the word “right” as used by the Church as “we have a moral obligation to do ensure people have access to healthcare.”

In some cases that does mean that some people who can’t afford basic medical attention might need help from others to pay for it, and society has a moral obligation to figure that out in line with the “common good”.

Blessings

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… There was a story about a son attending a Catholic funeral for his mother and wanted to receive Communion though he was allegedly living in a homosexual lifestyle; he did not know of the requirements for reception of Communion. So it’s quite possible for some to not know or to have forgotten what they previously knew.

Just read Canon 916 and 915. You may have them confused. BTW it was about Sunday mass presumably, not funerals.
You either get it or you dont, nothing further will assist you understanding if the explanations already offered here arent satsfactory.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You’re treatment of this posters is way out of line.

Well if people cannot be bothered to put in the hard yards to understand something but want to contribute anyways what is the point .

 

[philipl]

You don’t have to surrender your brain, but don’t you think that—as a Catholic—you owe it to yourself to listen to why the Church teaches as She does? That requires using one’s brain. You can’t properly listen and consider the teaching without using your brain.

I have listened and they are wrong. If you give government the right to do something to or for you and call it a natural right, then government will create thousands and thousands and thousands of natural rights.

If the church wants to create a charity so that people who can’t afford health care can go to a hospital, fine. but it doesn’t have the right to demand that government provide health care because heath care is a natural right.

 

[Joe_5859]

I have listened and they are wrong. If you give government the right to do something to or for you and call it a natural right, then government will create thousands and thousands and thousands of natural rights.

If the church wants to create a charity so that people who can’t afford health care can go to a hospital, fine. but it doesn’t have the right to demand that government provide health care because heath care is a natural right.

I think you are misunderstanding what the bishops have said. That health care is a natural right does not imply the government has to provide it 100% free to everyone. Food and shelter are also natural human rights, but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide it to everyone free of charge to everyone. That would clearly not be sustainable. But the government should seek to address issues where natural human rights are not being met. What that principle looks like in practice can vary, and there is room for a difference of opinion.

 

[philipl]

Well if people cannot be bothered to put in the hard yards to understand something but want to contribute anyways what is the point .

So that gives you the right to be condensending and rude?

 

[EIF5A]

Well if people cannot be bothered to put in the hard yards to understand something but want to contribute anyways what is the point .

Canon 915 and 916 have nothing to do with a hypothetical reminder from a priest.

All that was necessary was to mention it’s not done typically in a Catholic Church for reason XYZ. But since referencing Canon 915 and 916 was impertinent to the question, unless you have another citation/reason for why it’s not done, I don’t think my question was “unacceptable”.

But thank you for this opportunity. I will be sure to avoid know-it-all cradle Catholics in person who think internet discussion is some important theological council that presupposes knowledge in canon law.

I don’t know what triggered your aggravation, but maybe you should work that out.

How appropriate that the thread is about “perfect” Catholics who despise others.

 

[EIF5A]

Just read Canon 916 and 915. You may have them confused. BTW it was about Sunday mass presumably, not funerals.
You either get it or you dont, nothing further will assist you understanding if the explanations already offered here arent satsfactory.

The potential lack of awareness of necessary conditions for receiving Communion still applies.

There was no explanation/answer to the original question.

Maybe there is no answer as to why the Orthodox do and Catholics don’t - which is perfectly fine.

The subject was reminder which still depends on personal conscience and not intrusive interrogation.

I tried to be as charitable as I can, but clearly I’m far lacking in that category.

It’s probably best to just end this.

Good day.

 

[Randolph]

So that gives you the right to be condensending and rude?

I am with you. I do enjoy fruitful dialogues and robust debates as they provide opportunities to examine facts and ideas in the hope that goodness and truth would prevail. But they would only be fruitful and robust if civility, honesty and respect are observed. Resorting to condescension, rudeness and personal attacks only bring turmoils and discords. From personal experience, those who use, or relish in, these tactics usual are those who have have lost control of their arguments and are so desperate to get a win no matter the costs. In the end, it only speaks lowly of them.

I hope for respectable and civil discussions where all can learn something good.

 

[steve_b]

The subject was the same. Jerome’s silence showed his assent to Augustine’s claims.

Haydock has this to say about it:

so that the Jews seeing St. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But St. Augustine vigorously opposed this exposition of St. Jerome, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, St. Jerome seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of St. Augustine is commonly followed, that St. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of St. Peter on this occasion, as St. Cyprian observes,

J & A, 2 great saints and doctors of the Church, had a good conversation going on this subject. Both took different positions. Neither seemed to budge.

Jerome writes

"If, therefore, you censure me as in the wrong, suffer me, I pray you, to be mistaken in company with such men; and when you perceive that I have so many companions in my error you will require to produce at least one partisan in defense of your truth. So much on the interpretation of one paragraph of the Epistle to the Galatians. 7. Lest, however, I should seem to rest my answer to your reasoning wholly on the number of witnesses who are on my side, and to use the names of illustrious men as a means of escaping from the truth, not daring to meet you in argument, I shall briefly bring forward some examples from the scriptures…

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

That letter was in the year 404. Augustine responded is 405.

2 great minds, 2 different conclusions on one paragraph in Galatians.

Just being transparent, I would have liked to see Jerome’s response had he consented to respond. Jerome was taking up Peter’s defense had Peter responded to Paul’s rebuke. Instead we don’t hear from Peter. Peter is apparently silent. We see Paul however, in his later actions, follow Peter, in what Paul rebuked Peter for.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So that gives you the right to be condensending and rude?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

And my own opinion is that people who ask questions after admitting they haven’t read the lead in and thinking that “sorry” makes it acceptable doesn’t really cut it.

Hardly worth losing sleep over .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The potential lack of awareness of necessary conditions for receiving Communion still applies.

Good for you.
Me, I am sticking with your original proposition … which is the wisdom of advising everybody about Canon 916 before every Sunday Mass.

Its too extreme a thing to argue further for the reasons stated.
If you don’t get it I am sure others do.

 

[philipl]

I think you are misunderstanding what the bishops have said. That health care is a natural right does not imply the government has to provide it 100% free to everyone. Food and shelter are also natural human rights, but that doesn’t mean the government has to provide it to everyone free of charge to everyone. That would clearly not be sustainable. But the government should seek to address issues where natural human rights are not being met. What that principle looks like in practice can vary, and there is room for a difference of opinion.

The government shouldn’t be involved with health care, housing, supplying food, etc etc etc. The federal government should be limited to three or four things. Protection from invasion both internal and external, and that invasion would have to be happening at that moment, not a maybe invasion.

Deal with treaties but the Consitutition is the superior to all treaties.

deal with dispute amongst the states in conflicts of commerce, to make that commerce regular and not meaning it gets to regulate.

Also the federal government shouldn’t own any land outside of DC and if DC.

 

[James248]

J & A, 2 great saints and doctors of the Church, had a good conversation going on this subject. Both took different positions. Neither seemed to budge.

Jerome writes

"If, therefore, you censure me as in the wrong, suffer me, I pray you, to be mistaken in company with such men; and when you perceive that I have so many companions in my error you will require to produce at least one partisan in defense of your truth. So much on the interpretation of one paragraph of the Epistle to the Galatians. 7. Lest, however, I should seem to rest my answer to your reasoning wholly on the number of witnesses who are on my side, and to use the names of illustrious men as a means of escaping from the truth, not daring to meet you in argument, I shall briefly bring forward some examples from the scriptures…

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

That letter was in the year 404. Augustine responded is 405.

2 great minds, 2 different conclusions on one paragraph in Galatians.

Just being transparent, I would have liked to see Jerome’s response had he consented to respond. Jerome was taking up Peter’s defense had Peter responded to Paul’s rebuke. Instead we don’t hear from Peter. Peter is apparently silent. We see Paul however, in his later actions, follow Peter, in what Paul rebuked Peter for.

No he did not. Paul didn’t act in hypocrisy at all. Peter did. Now was Peter in the wrong or is Sacred Scripture lying?

 

[steve_b]

No he did not. Paul didn’t act in hypocrisy at all. Peter did. Now was Peter in the wrong or is Sacred Scripture lying?

Where is your sense of proportion?

Look at that paragraph from Galatians. Peter chose not to eat with someone, vs what Paul did to Timothy. That is Jerome’s point.

Remember Gal 1 where Paul says circumcision means nothing? Then He has Timothy his disciple, circumcised? For what?

Ever hear the phrase baptism replaces circumcision?
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

 

[James248]

Where is your sense of proportion?

Look at that paragraph from Galatians. Peter chose not to eat with someone, vs what Paul did to Timothy. That is Jerome’s point.

Remember Gal 1 where Paul says circumcision means nothing? Then He has Timothy his disciple, circumcised? For what?

Ever hear the phrase baptism replaces circumcision?
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

I already told you. But if my answer’s not good enough, here is Augustine’s:

**As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16:3 performing a vow at Cenchrea, Acts 18:18 and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, Acts 21:26 it is manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation, but to prevent men from believing that he condemned as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites which God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it, and as shadows of things to come. **For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught men to forsake Moses. Acts 21:21 This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.

For this reason also he circumcised Timothy, lest to the Jews, and especially to his relations by the mother’s side, it should seem that the Gentiles who had believed in Christ abhorred circumcision as they abhorred the worship of idols; whereas the former was appointed by God, and the latter invented by Satan. Again, he did not circumcise Titus, lest he should give occasion to those who said that believers could not be saved without circumcision, and who, in order to deceive the Gentiles, openly declared that this was the view held by Paul. This is plainly enough intimated by himself, when he says: But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Galatians 2:3-5 Here we see plainly what he perceived them to be eagerly watching for, and why it was that he did not do in the case of Titus as he had done in the case of Timothy, and as he might otherwise have done in the exercise of that liberty, by which he had shown that these observances were neither to be demanded as necessary to salvation, nor denounced as unlawful.

 

[steve_b]

I already told you. But if my answer’s not good enough, here is Augustine’s:

**As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16:3 performing a vow at Cenchrea, Acts 18:18 and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, Acts 21:26 it is manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation, but to prevent men from believing that he condemned as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites which God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it, and as shadows of things to come. **For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught men to forsake Moses. Acts 21:21 This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.

For this reason also he circumcised Timothy, lest to the Jews, and especially to his relations by the mother’s side, it should seem that the Gentiles who had believed in Christ abhorred circumcision as they abhorred the worship of idols; whereas the former was appointed by God, and the latter invented by Satan. Again, he did not circumcise Titus, lest he should give occasion to those who said that believers could not be saved without circumcision, and who, in order to deceive the Gentiles, openly declared that this was the view held by Paul. This is plainly enough intimated by himself, when he says: But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Galatians 2:3-5 Here we see plainly what he perceived them to be eagerly watching for, and why it was that he did not do in the case of Titus as he had done in the case of Timothy, and as he might otherwise have done in the exercise of that liberty, by which he had shown that these observances were neither to be demanded as necessary to salvation, nor denounced as unlawful.

Paul rebukes Peter for hypocrisy

hypocrisy = people who do things that they tell other people not to do

Re: circumcision

Remember where Paul said

• 1 Corinthians 7:19 , Romans 2:26 , Romans 3:1 , 1 Corinthians 7:18 , 1 Corinthians 7:19 * , Galatians 5:6* , Galatians 6:13*** , Galatians 6:15* , Etc
• Col. 2:11–12 In Context ] Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision . In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

Yet Paul had Timothy his disciple physically circumcised, after ALL that teaching against it…

And Paul calls Peter out for hypocrisy because he didn’t eat with somebody? That is Jerome’s point.

 

[James248]

Paul rebukes Peter for hypocrisy

hypocrisy = people who do things that they tell other people not to do

Re: circumcision

Remember where Paul said

• 1 Corinthians 7:19 , Romans 2:26 , Romans 3:1 , 1 Corinthians 7:18 , 1 Corinthians 7:19 * , Galatians 5:6* , Galatians 6:13*** , Galatians 6:15* , Etc
• Col. 2:11–12 In Context ] Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision . In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

Yet Paul had Timothy his disciple circumcised.

And Paul calls Peter out for hypocrisy? That is Jerome’s point.

My point is Augustine’s: Paul never believed circumsision was necessary, yet Peter’s actions confirmed the Judaizers’ claims.

 

[steve_b]

My point is Augustine’s: Paul never believed circumsision was necessary, yet Peter’s actions confirmed the Judaizers’ claims.

Go back and look at Galatians and what Peter did.

now apply the same argument to Paul

Did Paul confirm his teaching on circumcision means nothing, then He had Timothy circumcised?

 

[James248]

Go back and look at Galatians and what Peter did.

now apply the same argument to Paul

Did Paul confirm his teaching on circumcision means nothing, then He had Timothy circumcised?

Read my posts. Then read Augustine’s letters to Jerome. Then read Haydock, because to you insipired Scripture needs modifying,