I know… Many of you have already blurted the answer out loud. Even so, humor me and keep reading.
In the aftermath of Francis’ unambiguous clarification that Amoris Laetitia is an invitation to Holy Communion for those who obstinately persist in mortal sin, the neo-Catholic world has gone into full meltdown mode.
In at least one noteworthy case, namely, that of Robert Royal, it would appear that the scales may be falling from some eyes. In others, not so much.
Jeff Mirus at Catholic Culture, for instance, penned a defense of His Humbleness under the oh-so-lengthy-why-bother-to-read-any-further title, Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages. (I read it in its entirety anyway so you don’t have to torture yourself, but feel free.)
Mirus states:
… some Catholics are now saying that Pope Francis has crossed the line from doctrinal fuzziness to material heresy. But this is not at all the case.
It is not incompatible with the Church’s doctrinal teaching on either marriage or Communion to argue that, under some circumstances, persons involved in invalid marriages ought to be admitted to Communion.
Actually, some Catholics… you know… the ones whose heads haven’t been buried shoulders deep in the sand, have been saying that Francis crossed the line a very long time ago and for very good reason.
Be that as it may, let’s be very clear about the “persons” Francis and Mirus are discussing:
We are talking about persons who obstinately persist in a relationship characterized by the grave sin of adultery.
In his attempt to defend Francis, Mirus contends that the Church has always said that such persons “ought to be admitted to Communion under some circumstances.”
Canon Lawyer Edward Peters provided partial support for Mirus’ contention (we’ll get to his criticisms of Mirus later) saying:
As holy Communion may be (and perhaps even should be, assuming sorrow for sin, CCC 1393) taken by one in venial sin, Mirus argues that some divorced-and-remarried Catholics should feel free to approach for holy Communion. Now, everything Mirus says so far is at least arguably, and much of it is actually, true.
Really?
What part of Adultery = Mortal Sin do these people fail to understand?
Remember, the Beunos Aires bishops’ directive of which Francis said, “There are no other interpretations” provides the following scenario as an example of one wherein the invitation to Communion is possible:
An invalid “second marriage” (civil) wherein at least one party remains validly married to another person. An annulment isn’t “feasible,” and one or both parties refuse to live in continence.
Sure sounds like the mortal sin of adultery to me.
Ed Peters goes on to say in his qualified defense of Jeff Mirus:
“One’s approaching for holy Communion is a matter of personal conscience chiefly guided by Canon 916.” [Emphasis in original.]
OK, I’ll bite. What does Canon 916 say?
Can. 916: Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
Even if one allows that a “grave reason” exists in the case under discussion (we’ll take a closer look at this momentarily) what follows in Canon 916 is crucial: and there is no opportunity to confess.
The canon even makes clear that the obligation to confess, with perfect contrition, remains; all of which implies that the would-be recipient of Communion in this case has a firm purpose of amendment to cease committing adultery.
This doesn’t even come close to describing the hypothetical scenario provided by the Argentine bishops and endorsed by Francis!
Mirus, however, thinks he found a loophole that exonerates all concerned.
In order for a sin to be mortal, he reminds us, three things are required.
Let’s review these requirements, and more importantly, let’s see if they apply to the scenario described in the Beunos Aires directive:
- Grave matter. CHECK.
- Full knowledge. CHECK [“A subject may know full well the rule, yet…” (cf AL 301)]
- Deliberate consent. Not so fast, says Jeff!
Mirus, not to be deterred, provided his own make believe scenario by engaging in what is readily recognized as an exercise in good ol’ fashioned situation ethics. He writes:
Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:
- An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.
- Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).
- The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.
- The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.
- Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.
Yes, God forbid the children be deprived of a father who uses his presence in the family home as a bargaining chip in order to extort sex from their mother!
According to the “likely scenario” provided by Mirus, the so-called “reasonable justification” for downgrading adultery to a venial sin thereby opening the way to Holy Communion ceases to be valid once the kids grow up.
I can just see it now…
Suzy: Jim, I have some bad news for you. Our youngest is turning 18 tomorrow. I am cutting you off at the stroke of midnight… no pun intended.
This is the kind of absurdity that arises when one attempts to make excuses for the inexcusable rather than simply upholding objective truth.
I have an idea… How about we add a sixth item to Mirus’ list; one that apparently never crossed his mind – a Catholic one that Francis would shudder to even imagine:
6. During the much ballyhooed “process of accompaniment” with his or her pastor, the persons having sex outside of marriage are made aware that means do not justify ends; i.e., a good intention does not render an objectively evil act good, therefore, the obligation to desist from the mortal sin remains, and until such time as their lives are so amended the sacraments may not be approached.
As it is, Mirus’ “likely scenario” is reminiscent of a similar attempt to defend Francis after he publicly endorsed the use of “oral contraception” and “condoms” in light of the Zika virus scare.
Readers may recall that Fr. Robert Gahl, an Associate Professor of moral philosophy at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said that Francis must have had in mind, get this:
“…extreme scenarios in which, for instance, a woman is threatened by a violent, Zika-infected husband to have sexual intercourse with her.”
What the Hell is it with these people?
What Mirus and Gahl have in common is that they are far more comfortable with convoluted scenarios wherein women are forced to engage in sex against their will than they are with admitting the plain truth about Francis.
Ed Peters, to his credit, does correct Mirus on two important points:
First, he points out that Canon 915 requires the Minister of Holy Communion not to admit those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin; irrespective of the would-be recipient’s personal “conscience.”
Secondly, Mirus argues:
I have repeatedly made the point that the rules governing reception of Communion are disciplinary, not doctrinal.
Let’s stop here for a moment. Notice that Mirus is unashamed, perhaps even proud, of having made this idiotic assertion repeatedly; as if the disciplines governing the reception of Holy Communion are not inextricably linked to the immutable doctrines from which they arise. We’ll come back to this…
Mirus continues:
It is impossible to prove that advocacy of any disciplinary approach indicates heresy in the mind of the advocate.
Peters isn’t buying it, writing:
That is not correct. A classic example pointed to a man whose refusal to abide by disciplinary norms such as genuflecting before the tabernacle might show a wordless, but clearly heretical, denial of the Real Presence.
NOTE: I wonder if Peters has anyone in particular in mind here… say, a certain Argentinian in white who has no trouble dropping to his knees when the Humblecam is rolling but never manages to do so before the Most Holy Eucharist?
Mirus writes as if “the mind of the advocate” in this matter is a mystery.
Please, the mind of Francis has never been a mystery. He has been dumping its poisonous contents on everyone within earshot for more than three years now. We have been calling him to account for his heterodoxy on these pages since March 2013!
In the present case, “the mind of the advocate” is spelled out with remarkable clarity in the pages of Amoris Laetitia, of which Francis owns every last condemnable word.
This brings me back to the inextricable link that exists between doctrine and discipline.
Just as the venerable discipline of the Church is a direct outgrowth of authentic Catholic doctrine, so too is the sacrilege being promoted by Francis the outgrowth of the false doctrine set forth in Amoris Laetitia!
Long story short, folks, there is no mystery here:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, alias Francis, is a blasphemous heretic who with every passing day is inching ever closer to proving his pertinacity beyond any reasonable doubt.
Hey, did you ever think, that it’s BECAUSE we have 2 popes that it’s evident that the seat isn’t vacant? Both wicked in their cooperation. They each have their roles. But only ONE is needed to be pope for The Church, even if he is acting evil. If one weren’t needed to be the real pope than he would be dead. They would have just killed him. It would have been less complicated to pull off their plan…but they needed him, because he’s the pope. Because the church needs a pope. He’s supposedly lifeless as pope, locked away and all, shall we say. But still there, alive. Still even called pope. Still wearing white. Still a visible pope, ( so please stop saying he’s not the visible pope). Sorry if you can’t see him there visibly wearing white and can’t hear everyone still using the title “Pope”. I can see and hear it. Just open your eyes and ears. Still, called pope, still recognized as pope, still verbally called pope, still refered to as pope, still living in the vatican and still called pope. still pope. He is not,”not pope”. By the way, they could handle him being around as The Pope who is not the pope, how ever they want and most everyone out here will agree with whatever they say…because this, having 2 popes that is, doesn’t happen every day.
The most awesome thing that they pulled off is having us still referring to him as pope, but saying- oh well he’s not the pope…how ludicrous. How awesomely evil. How confused we all are. How obvious it is. We are dealing with the most evil powers in the world at the most evil time in the world….so far. Remember Pope Leo XIII original St. Michael prayer? Remember how Jesus allowed Satan more time and more power over men he’d use? No matter when those hundred years began or if they ended yet, we are either in them or feeling their results. The evil guys are just perhaps programmed by Satan now, and on autopilot.
As far as who’s the pope, of course they will have the answer right in front of our faces and still be capable of deceiving us. Of course they will have fun laughing and mocking us, The Church, during its persecution.
Still alive. Still pope. We have 2 popes, but only one can be pope. One sitting pretty at home, the other running full throttle around the world with all the big evil tough guys who want to ” rule the world”. One doing nothing to stop the other as he freely and openly lashes The Church. One pope. Can you guess who’s pope? Oh, and I can’t judge a soul, but from my point of view, they both seem to be behaving purely evil. Still one Pope. So, why in the world is Pope Benedict sitting in the Vatican alive, oh and did I mention, still called “Pope”?
So why not also make up whatever rules about Holy Communion they want? It’s an opportunity to offend God. Either you see it or you don’t. Obvious to some, not to all.
Good job Louie.
We need to blast these arguments head on. Also from Rorate Caeli :
“It thus cannot be maintained that the rules governing reception of the Eucharist are disciplinary and hence are not doctrinal. Familiaris Consortio 84 acknowledges the divinely revealed basis of the discipline of not admitting adulterers to Holy Communion: ‘The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.’”
—And again—
“Knowing what you are doing and choosing to do it in order to obtain a desired goal is what fully voluntary action consists in. There is no exculpating infringement of the will or lack of voluntary consent in the scenario. There is a fully voluntary choice to do a wrong action, made because doing the action has a result that the agent wants to obtain. Making choices of this kind is what sin is.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/09/op-ed-adultery-as-venial-sin-and-other.html
You don’t have to know the definition of heretical to know when one sumply hates Our Lord.
Oh Cortez I truly feel your pain….All seems lost and Our lady said that when all seems lost She will act. I can’t imagine that it won’t be long now. A commenter , who identified as a religious on one of Louie’s posts mentioned that at LaSalette Our Lady spoke of two worm ridden popes, she heard that from the now deceased Fr Gregory Hesse, it could just be that these two compadres are who She was speaking of. I personally am still amazed that people who believe the immutable truths of the church and who believe the approved apparitions of Our Lady, not to mention prophesies from the Saints just aren’t getting the fact that something is coming from Divine Intervention ..sooner than later, and we won’t have to worry anymore about which one is and which one isn’t.
Traditional Catholics have always been aware of this scenario being played out. Even before PF’s ascendency JPII & PB actions weren’t always upholding the Deposit of Faith, Magisterium & Tradition which goes with the Papal Office. Assisi, the Blue Mosque plus the Child Abuse scandals were impossible to explain other than the Papacy being usurped by Marxist/Masonic/Modernists. We had, of course, PPVI who admitted leaving the door ajar for Satan to enter the CC but did little to stop him & the sudden demise of PJPI for which a valid death certificate could not be written. None of these Popes made any attempt to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary or to reveal (in full) the Third Secret of Fatima which disgracefully snubbed Our Lady’s instructions. How could anything ever come from such a resolute insult to the Mother of God?
PF is the result of much plotting & planning by these non-Catholic deviants which is culminating in the final showdown. Next month Lund & possibly the lifting of Luther’s excommunication, followed by Holy Communion for all-comers & as no repentance will be needed, confession will be ditched completely. Already Last Rites, Marriage & Confirmation practically gone in my part of Spain & I expect in most parts of Europe. PF & cronies advocating the welcome of Muslims over Christians (Lesbos) – they worship the same God as we do – but as he also stated that there was no Catholic God (there can only be One God) what ‘God’ is he talking about? Maybe George Soros (Schwartz) could help us out on this one?
Demotions of Traditional-minded Cardinals/Bishops, promotions of PF supporters, admonishments & snarly remarks aimed at Traditional Catholics for attempting to uphold Tradition, which, as Pope (if he is legitimately Pope) he should be upholding, the ignoring of countless petitions signed by Catholics globally asking for adherence to the Magisterium, the 500 priests requesting PF to stand firm on Communion for the Remarried & the more recent 45 academics wanting clarification on AL, all have been met with total contempt. Now it is being suggested that the CDF will make the necessary arrangements for the formal recognition of AL as a Binding Document as Cardinal Schönborn has always insisted “all prior teaching on family must be read through AL”. He also praised the AL stance on Gay Marriage! If the rumours are correct & he is going to replace Cardinal Muller at the CDF then this also was a done deal.
The sad part is no-one is publicly opposing him at this stage, not even the SSPX, who continue to be controlled by NO Bishops who refuse them Faculties to minister in their areas. As long as this control is maintained by the Vatican & PB (Bishop in white?) refuses to ‘sing’ there is simply nothing man can do but await, after much pain & suffering, the necessary Divine intervention which we hopefully are all praying for.
Thank you once again, Mr. V. Yours is a great gift for quickly discening distortions and lies and then grinding them into dust with the proper application of Truth. This post is one for “ready-reference” file worthy of memorization.
Unfortunately the supply of influential public would-be defenders of the indefensible, seems endless these days, so I’m very grateful for the time you’re saving the rest of us, in zeroing-in on what we need to be clarifying to others in our lives.
In one place we now have the debunking of the misapplication and false teachings on Canon 916’s emergency measures; perfect contrition; Mortal sin; full consent of the will; and the relationsip and differences between discipline and doctrine.
My three favorite lines:
“God forbid the children be deprived of a father– who uses his presence in the family home as a bargaining chip in order to extort sex from their mother!”
and
“Please, the mind of Francis has never been a mystery.” “He has been dumping its poisonous contents on everyone within earshot for more than three years now.”
God bless you and keep you on the right track.
What you say, Mr Verrechio, is the blatant terrible truth. Lord, have mercy!
Since we’re playing numbers games here, I sat down and figured out when 1,260 days (time of the anti-Christ) from Bergoglio’s election were up.
August 24th, 2016 (counting leap day this past February)
Then I went to the net and wrote in: Pope Francis on August 24, 2016.
Here’s what came up. I personally think the photo represents what he’s done so far to those who don’t know the faith:
http://religionnews.com/2016/08/29/italian-earthquake-woke-pope-francis-in-the-vatican/
I’ve read that this earthquake affected the tourist sites where St. Francis used to walk and pray. The Aftershocks are still going on. (see some of Hillary White’s blogposts for details on her whatsupwithfrancis site)
How’s that for an ongoing analogy?
OOPS, the above comment was intended for the discussion on
Mr. V’s “Are you ready, OK let’s Roll ” post.
But actually, the photo of the devastation does fit in here, as well.
It would seem that Francis, and the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who support him are thinking like Freemasons and thus are: on the road to hell and dragging many souls with them. As it has been said on this page many, many times: God will not be mocked-!!!!!!!!!
Cortez,
I get concerned about speech that judges hearts, which only God can do. He has provided much evidence that he finds certain rules and regulations of the Church abhorrent. I would also be inclined to believe he has created his own image of Our Lord, which he loves, so I can see where people would conclude that he hates the REAL Jesus. Still, it’s better not to risk committing our own sins, by judging that – especially in this public forum, don’t you agree?
There’s plenty to condemn about what he says and does when we compare it to the almost 2,000 years of teachings we can rely upon.
Psalm 68
…
17 With mighty chariotry, twice ten thousand,
thousands upon thousands,
the Lord came from Sinai into the holy place.
18 Thou didst ascend the high mount,
leading captives in thy train,
and receiving gifts among men,
even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.
19 Blessed be the Lord,
who daily bears us up;
God is our salvation.
20 Our God is a God of salvation;
and to God, the Lord, belongs escape from death.
Your missing one point that i think it is important.
I quote from Amoris Laetitia 301
Mitigating factors in pastoral discernment
301. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
As you can see, it is not only a question of having new children, but full awareness (wich is one of the three condition NEEDED if we speak of mortal sin) includes also people who have ” great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”.
In other words, if you don’t fully grasp the inerent value of the norm, if you don’t “feel” it, your aren’t guilty of mortal sin.
And this is nothing new, every confessor know this stuff.
I quote Rocco Buttiglione http://www.lastampa.it/2016/05/30/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/amoris-laetitia-takes-a-step-in-the-direction-marked-by-wojtyla-ZdNeNqIoSgzMgt438ELD2J/pagina.html
With the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia something has changed, then?
“Of course something has changed! But neither the morality nor the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage have changed. The pastoral discipline of the Church is changing. Until yesterday, for the sin committed by the divorced and remarried, there was a presumption of total guilt. Now even for this sin the subjective aspect will be evaluated, as is the case for murder, for not paying taxes, for exploiting workers, for all the other sins we commit. The priest listens and also assesses the mitigating circumstances. Do these circumstances change the nature of the situation? No, a divorce and a new union remain objectively evil. Do these circumstances change the responsibility of the person involved? Maybe yes. You have to discern.”
http://www.catholicnewworld.com/rbonal
” When i was a child I studied the Roman Catechism before making my First Holy Communion. The Catechism was written by a pope who was undoubtedly anti-modernist: Saint Pius X. I remember him saying that to receive the Eucharist a soul had to be free from mortal sin. He also explained what a mortal sin is. In order for a sin to be mortal, three conditions are necessary. It must be an intrinsically evil act or gravely contrary to the moral law: that is, it has to be grave matter. Sexual relations outside of marriage are without doubt gravely contrary to the moral law. This was the case before Amoris Laetitia, this is still the case in Amoris Laetitia, and it will naturally be the case after Amoris Laetitia. The pope has not changed the Church’s doctrine.
But Saint Pius X tells us more. For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. IF ONE IS CONVINCED IN CONSCIENCE THAT THE ACT IS NOT (GRAVELY) EVIL, THE ACTION WILL BE MATERIALLY EVIL BUT NOT IMPUTED TO THE PERSON AS A MORTAL Moreover, the acting subject must give deliberate consent to the evil action. This means that the sinner must be free to act or not to act: that is, he must be free to act in one way rather than another, and he must not be coerced by a fear that obliges him to do one thing when he prefers another.”
The key factor is this
“IF ONE IS CONVINCED IN CONSCIENCE THAT THE ACT IS NOT (GRAVELY) EVIL, THE ACTION WILL BE MATERIALLY EVIL BUT NOT IMPUTED TO THE PERSON AS A MORTAL SIN”
This is not heresy by any means.
Ah, so the “conscience is God” approach. My dad’s best friend uses that nonsense to vote and support abortion. His “conscience” tells him it’s fine. Maybe Hitler’s “conscience” was fine with killing people too:+)
Please site the exact text and page of this rubbish. Conscience can be unformed and malformed and is NOT the end all and be all. “Feeling” isn’t fact. We work by the intellect and will, not “feeling”. God bless~
John Coltrane,
What you describe here, strikes me as wrong. I’m no theologian, but I know that one’s CONSCIENCE has to be rightly formed, and that state could never include DELIBERATELY, PERSONALLY REJECTING the knowable teaching of the Church on the GRAVITY of a particular sin. That in turn, would explain your statement that “until yesterday” .there was always considered a presumption of total guilt.”
Heresy is the rejection of one or more teachings of the church.
So how it is NOT heresy to reject the Church’s definition, based on the dogmatic teaching of Our Lord, that ADULTERY IS A GRAVE, MATTER, IE. MORTAL SIN?.
I can see how one could argue that the very first sexual encounter with a partner other than one’s spouse, might have been made in ignorance of this fact. But we’re not talking about invincible ignorance here, unless the Pope is now instructing priests not to inform anyone of the gravity of the sins they are planning on continuing to commit–for the sake of their children–so as not to break up their new sinful family.
Would you be kind enough to answer these points for me, on rightly formed conscience being the responsibility of the individual as well as those “pastoring” him’ and on it not being possible to reject the Church’s teaching on the Gravity of this sin, without becoming a heretic?
Your example is right. I, personally, am TOTALLY against abortion (i know it is murder, Period) But if your dad’s best friend has an invincibly erroneous conscience he isn’t guilty of mortal sin; even if he supports the horrible crime knows as abortion.
There is vincible and invincible ignorance, this is catholic doctrine, my friend. Anyway, this is word for the Confessor.
Bytheway, you people should read this http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344740?eng=y
That Vademecum treats contraception in the SAME way Amoris Laetitia treats divorced and remaireed but nobody anatematized GPII.
Greetings from Italy.
God bless you too.
We cannot know “the mind of the advocate”. As St Robert Bellarmine teaches, “we are not bound to read the heart”, but only what is externally visible and manifest.
Since the externally visible and manifest action is all we can go on to make a judgement, in the case of this horrible antipope (here I mean Francis; Benedict can wait for another time) then we have to presume that the worst.
For Mirus to say we cannot know the mind of the advocate, then why does he go on to presume innocence and not guilt? He just said we cannot know either way. Since the external signs point to guilt and not innocence, that’s all we have to work with. Francis cannot possible be the Pope. I hardly need to add that by applying the same principle, Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla and Ratzinger weren’t popes either, since the Church can’t administer poison through Councils, liturgies, canon law etc.
We can therefore know who is and who is not a Catholic by their words and actions. We are not bound to wonder about the interior motivations when externally, they go against the Church.
The horrible crime KNOWN as abortion, not “knows”, sorry.
Please ignore the typo’s above.
You should read this http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1344740?eng=y
Ad you can see, conscience can formulate (even if you know the norm) an erroneus judgment on moral issues, and when is that the case the penitent is not guilty of mortal sin.
Read the topic, it speaks about a Vademecum for Confessors dated 1997.
So John,
Who is it that exists and is unaware that the Church has taught for centuries that to have sex outside of marriage, being divorced & remarried (without annulment), assisting in an abortion, etc. is grounds for being barred from communion? Unless, of course, they were raised by Sasquatch or some such… If they feel, (oh yes, feelings are all that matter), that an action barring from the Eucharist is not grave matter, ergo Mortal Sin, they should not be let out without supervision. And those clerics and academics and diabolically disordered who continue to tickle their ears to pile on one bogus excuse after another will be responsible for the suffering in the hereafter.
Spot on Cortez.
If no one apart from some expert with a dozen theological degrees (I’m not downplaying anyone who does) was qualified to know what a heresy was, then why does the Church bother to teach Catechism to the faithful in the first place?
My ten year old knows a heresy when I try to catch him out when I’m testing him on his Catechism. He can spot heresy, because he knows its as simple as a contradiction or denial of any point of Church doctrine.
Yes, Past and present Church teaching are the basis of this knowledge that Communion is not an option:
“Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are GRAVE offenses against the dignity of marriage.” Catechism of the Catholic Church. (2400)
Adultery is a two-fold sin, against the virtues of justice-( to the validly married spouse) and against chastity. (Catholic encyclopedia)
Pope Pius XI Encyclical on Christian Marriage- Casti Cannubi:
. That rigid attitude which condemns all sensual affections and actions with a third party they imagine to be a narrowing of mind and heart, something obsolete, or an abject form of jealousy, and as a result they look upon whatever penal laws are passed by the State for the preserving of conjugal faith as void or to be abolished. Such unworthy and idle opinions are condemned by that noble instinct which is found in every chaste husband and wife, and even by the light of the testimony of nature alone, — a testimony that is sanctioned and confirmed by the command of God:”Thou shalt not commit adultry,” and the words of Christ: “Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
THE FORCE OF THIS DIVINE PRECEPT CAN NEVER BE WEAKENED by any merely human custom, bad example or pretext of human progress, for JUST AS IT IS THE ONE AND THE SAME “JESUS CHRIST, YESTERDAY, AND TODAY, AND THE SAME FOREVER””[57] so it is the one and the same doctrine of Christ that abides and of which no one jot or tittle shall pass away till all is fulfilled.[58]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM
How many people who do unspeakable acts without a doubt turn to their conscience to try to justify those acts?
What you fail to mention is one’s conscience is not a good guide in determining how to act if it is formed through errors and lies.
And the conscience’s of the indoctrinated into Modernism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Humanism, and Materialism to name a few of the errors and lies the true Catholic Church has exposed, will try to justify making a mockery of the teachings of Christ Himself which they reject.
Partaking of Christ in Communion is the most sacred act that we can do and it demands from us the utmost respect and reverence for our Creator and redeemer has expressed no greater love for us. It demands that we learn and understand exactly what it means when we take Him into our own bodies.
O.k. ACTS like he hates Our Lord. I guess also the people who literally crucified Jesus acted like they hated our Lord. Perhaps they didn’t. Semantics are important. Thank you for reminding me and for looking out for my best interest. I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to say sorry that I judged their souls instead of their actions. It’s just that sometimes I want to cut an ear off or something. Jesus sure doesn’t go for that either. My heart, I hope is in the right place. I AM a sinner though. I appreciate all your fine words and respect your avice.
Reply to you, HelpusLord, is above.
If there is an erroneous judgment on moral issues for anyone claiming to be Catholic they are neither interested in being Catholic nor forming a conscience that comports to the Church’s teachings.
There is absolutely no excuse for any Catholic not to know what the Church teachings are on divorce and remarriage, on contraception and abortion, on acts of sodomy, on suicide, on assisted suicide or euthanasia because they have always been the same and always will be the same.
John, this is my reply to your link to the chiesa artle (above)
Okay, I had never heard of this before, (being an instruction to priests that is not surprising) so I read the entire thing. Although my first reaction was “this is a load of CRAP!!.” a second reading produced a greater certainty of that. I THANK YOU for linking this, because I now understand a lot more about what has screwed up the Church.
Although I get very emotional about souls being lost by bad teachings like this, I will present you with a Catholic, rational point of view, for your sake and anyone else who is confused by it..
1. The article states: “This document is NOT properly speaking, an act of the hierarchical magisterium, but is nonetheless the most recent indication issued from a consultative organ of the Holy See on how to address the question of contraception in the confessional.
2. It is admitted that it goes directly against the teachings of Pius XI promulgated Encyclical of Casti Cannubi, calling those “rigorist” in several places. THAT document WAS an act of the hierarchical magisterium, and was based on the teachings of Christ.
3. Quoting the article: ” Beginning with the 1931 encyclical by Pius XI “Casti Connubii,” confessors began to be told not to rely on “good faith” anymore, but to instruct the penitent on the gravity of the sin that he was committing. (Casti Cannubi explained why this “good faith” idea was in error).
4. This instructs priests go back to what the Pope condemned “good faith”, and (I find this almost unspeakable evil), tells them to LEAVE the sinner in a state of invincible ignorance, SO THEY WON’T BE INFORMED OF THEIR ERROR OF THOUGHT, AND CONTINUE THE BEHAVIOR DESPITE THE PRIEST KNOWING IT IS GRAVELY SINFUL!!! After which the priest is to “hope” to gradually (after absolving them) later search for the causes/errors which they came to believe which led them to think they were not sinning, and slowly correct those, hoping they will agree to stop believing them! The priest is to pray for them during this “process” Good God, Man, how can you not see how absurd this all is? Sorry if I am disrespecting your intelligence, I find this incredibly obvious .
5. Two more quotes which should tell any faithful Catholic that this is modernism at its best:
” Dominican theologian Giordano Muraro, a professor of moral theology at the Angelicum in Rome, wrote that this was “a courageous document, which has restored peace and serenity to the hearts of many confessors, but also of many faithful.” “But he also objected to an omission in the document: it introduced innovations with respect to the previous “rigorist” line, but did not explain the reason for these changes.”
6. Anastasia (who posts on Mr. V’s blog) may have a heart attack when reading your link. I welcome her comments, should she survive it.
I also hope Mr. V. will examine the document, and do a post on it.
Finally, I will repost here, part of response I made to Mike, above–a quote from a Catholic Pope Pius XI in Casti Cannubi:
That “rigid attitude” which condemns all sensual affections and actions with a third party they imagine to be a narrowing of mind and heart, something obsolete, or an abject form of jealousy, and as a result they look upon whatever penal laws are passed by the State for the preserving of conjugal faith as void or to be abolished. Such unworthy and idle opinions are condemned by that noble instinct which is found in every chaste husband and wife, and even by the light of the testimony of nature alone, — a testimony that is sanctioned and confirmed by the command of God:”Thou shalt not commit adultry,” and the words of Christ: “Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
THE FORCE OF THIS DIVINE PRECEPT CAN NEVER BE WEAKENED by any merely human custom, bad example or pretext of human progress, for JUST AS IT IS THE ONE AND THE SAME “JESUS CHRIST, YESTERDAY, AND TODAY, AND THE SAME FOREVER””[57] so it is the one and the same doctrine of Christ that abides and of which no one jot or tittle shall pass away till all is fulfilled.[58]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM
John, please see my response – below.
My final point, John, is that for any priest to believe for even a second, that his role is to deliberately leave a penitent in ignorance of the contradiction between what the person thinks is okay with God, and what IS TRUE about the sin, and easily knowable, is truly diabolical. My guess is, THAT is what produced this thinking and this evil document.
If a Catholic doesnt know full well that adultery is mortally sinful, and he/she is not a mental retard, then how is their failure to know their Catholic Faith not their death-sentence?
How is it even possible for a Catholic in 2016 to not know that adultery is a damnable act? This crazy idea is a mockery of God.
From the GREAT St. John Marie Vianney (the Cure D’Ars)…..”We shall find out at the day of judgment that the greater number of Christians who are lost were damned because they did not know their own religion.” (Sermons of the Cure of Ars)
Hey Cortez,
I’ve been there, and I know the feeling.
God Bless.
It is diabolical. HOWEVER….the fool Catholic who doesnt learn his/her Faith is much more culpable for their laziness. Their is no excuse of ignorance for a baptized Catholic, of sound mind, who doesnt know what is right. This in itself is a mortal sin.
“There” is no excuse….sorry.
Rich,
I’m thinking of teenagers, taught the Faith by their parents, having it contradicted in the confessional, and perhaps likely told by a priest not to discuss it with their parents…. Thus using the cover of secrecy of confession, to corrupt. You’re still right that the kid is culpable for the ear-tickling.
Powerful Quote.
You are wrong because you don’t understand the catholic point of view of conscience, wich is a thomistic point of view.
I’ll try to explain that, in regards to Amoris Laetitia and contraception
Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.
I quote from this http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.
Amoris Laetitia and the Vademecum i posted is 100% thomistic.
And of course someone can have a culpably erroneous conscience, but there are many who are invincibly not by their fault.
With “invincibly ignorant” i don’t mean that they don’t know the rule: i mean that even if they know the rule their conscience goes against it, and like Aquinas said “not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do”
People who have a culpably erroneous conscience are guilty of that and they can repent of that sin of omission, but they are not guilty if they can’t reform their conscience wich is now erroneous.
So, ad you can see, conscience plays a MAJOR part in determining if someone is or isn’t guilty of mortal sin.
And both Amoris Laetitia and that Vademecum of 1997 are 100% thomistic.
Conscience: faith has been falsified and many people without any wrong intention let themselves be influenced by Liberalism & Modernism. That is why they are ready to believe that all religions save. If each man’s faith is according to his conscience–if it is conscience that produces faith–then there is no reason to believe that one faith saves any better than another, so long as the conscience is directed towards God. We are now being told that man does not receive truth but constructs it. Yet we know, and our intelligence corroborates this, that truth is not created–we do not create it. With truth there is no past or present or future. Truth belongs to all times, it is eternal.
An erroneous conscience makes life easier for man, Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth, It would not be the truth that would set him free, but rather he would have to be freed from the truth, Man would be more at home in the dark than in the light. Faith would not be the good gift of the good God but instead an burden.
“How is it even possible for a Catholic in 2016 to not know that adultery is a damnable act? This crazy idea is a mockery of God.”
I quote from my post
“With “invincibly ignorant” i don’t mean that they don’t know the rule: i mean that even if they know the rule their conscience goes against it, and like Aquinas said “not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do”
And speaking about Amoris Laetitia, there a lot of couples that don’t understand why God should damn them to hell, because they are happy in the new relationship while they see the first marriage as a life sentence.
Women that were beaten and humiliated, they found happiness in a new relationship and they cannot understand why God would anatematized their relationships.
There are cases of husband and wife who are separated by mutual agreement because their marriage has become a cage for both
There are cases of husband and wife who are separated by mutual agreement because their marriage has become a cage for both.
There are cases where the rule “live like brother and sister” would cause the breaking of the new union with great detriment of children born from this new union and we could go on ad infinitum…
All these people in most cases don’t think they are dooing the wrong thing, because they can’t believe that God wants them to suffer when all they want is pursue happiness.
They don’t feel in conscience they are committing a sin, and if they follow their conscience their are not guilty of mortal sin and can receive Holy Communion.
But this is something that the Confessor must discern with the faithful.
I think it was Archbishop Lefebvre who wrote he above ??? How profound !!!!
“Conscience: faith has been falsified and many people without any wrong intention let themselves be influenced by Liberalism & Modernism. That is why they are ready to believe that all religions save. If each man’s faith is according to his conscience–if it is conscience that produces faith–then there is no reason to believe that one faith saves any better than another, so long as the conscience is directed towards God.”
I don’t know catholics Who think that all religions save. If each man’ faithful is according to his conscience and refused our Lord out of ignorance he can be saved but ALWAYS trough Jesus.
The Lord told to Saint Faustina that he visits every soul on the verge of death, even the souls of catholics who are in a state of mortal sin and non believers, and he offers them a last chance of salvation. Only the ones who refuse go to hell.
She erore in her Diary entry 1507
” All Grace flows from mercy, and the last hour abounds with mercy for us. Let no one doubt concerning the goodness of God; even if a person’s sins were as dark as night, God’s mercy is stronger than our misery. One thing alone is necessary: that the sinner set ajar the door of his heart, be it ever so little, to let in a ray of God’s merciful grace, and then God will do the rest. But poor is the soul who has shut the door on God’s mercy, even at the last hour. It was just such souls who plunged Jesus into deadly sorrow in the Garden of Olives; indeed, it was from His Most Merciful Heart that divine mercy flowed out.”
She also tells us in her Diary
“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.
Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God.”(1698)
Realizing God’s mercy is infinite and incomprehensible, what St. Faustina is telling us is that God directly intervenes with the soul, giving the soul the last chance for true contrition and salvation, despite the fact that no sacramental Confession or the Anointing of the Sick was possible. THIS IS INCREDIBLE MERCY!
So everyone who is saved is saved trough and by our Lord JESUS CHRIST. He certainly does not denies the final grace to people of good will of other religions.
Reread the parable of the workers in the vineyardc
I replied to you in the post below, take a look.
I wrote
“She erore in her Diary entry 1507”
I wanted to write “she wrote in her Diary entry 1507”.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity,NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,WHEREBY THEY MAY BE ABLE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY TO MANIFEST AND DECLARE ANY OF THEIR IDEAS WHATEVER, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH, BY THE PRESS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”
John I believe Saint Faustina’s diary was been condemed by Pope Pius Xll and John XXlll ie. On October 2, 1936, she states that the “Lord Jesus” appeared to her and said, “Now, I know that it is not for the graces or gifts that you love Me, but because My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with NO OTHER CREATURE.” (Divine Mercy in My Soul, The Diary of Sr. Faustina. How can we believe that Our Lord has united Himself more intimately with Sr. Faustina than with the Blessed Virgin Mary?
“was been” !!! Sorry its late here…lol
John
I ask again, who in the civilized world of 2016 can possibly be invincibly ignorant of anything concerning the Catholic Faith (because we arent talking about indigenous jungle-dwelling south americans here?); Also, isnt it our OBLIGATION as Catholics to learn our Faith? Im certain that it is….and if we are exposed to the Faith then willful ignorance will be no excuse. In other words, I might not KNOW its the law of God…..but shame on on me for not learning my Faith.
Again, this idea of “I didnt know so Im not culpable” is a direct mockery of God. You did not know because you didnt care to know. Thats not an excuse.
There is not discontinuity with the CVII http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1883/vatican_ii_and_religious_liberty.aspx
“was been” !!! sorry its late here !!! lol
You are mistakenly invincibile ignorance with “ignorance of the norm”. They aren’t the same.
You are mistakenly equating invincibile ignorance with “ignorance of the norm”. They aren’t the same.
Reply
Faustina://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
“John I believe Saint Faustina’s diary was been condemed by Pope Pius Xll and John XXlll ”
Only because of wrong translation. Take a look
https://churchpop.com/2016/04/02/almost-lost-st-faustinas-divine-mercy-devotion/
“The Polish people were crushed – including many of the clergy. One such person was Karol Wojtyła. A “rising star” in the church’s hierarchy, he was influential in the drafting of several key documents of Vatican II and was appointed Archbishop of Kraków at the relatively young age of 43 in 1964. Within a year of having his new position, and with a approval from the Vatican, he started a fresh investigation into her works.
He discovered that the previous condemnation of St. Faustina’s works had been mostly a result of those at the Vatican reading her works not in their original Polish but via faulty French and Italian translations.”
It is a very important devotion, it grants you (because it is wanted by Jesus himself) that you will die in a state of grace
“Say unceasingly the Chaplet that I have taught you. Whoever will recite it, they will receive great mercy at the hour of death. Priests will recommend it to sinners as their last hope of salvation. Even if there were a sinner most hardened, if he were to recite this chaplet only once, he would receive grace from My infinite mercy.” (Diary, 687)
“It pleases me to grant everything souls ask of me by saying the chaplet. When hardened sinners say it, I will fill their souls with peace, and the hour of their death will be a happy one. Write this for the benefit of distressed souls; when a soul sees and realises the gravity of its sins, when the whole abyss of the misery into which it immersed itself is displayed before its eyes, let it not despair, but with trust, let it throw itself into the arms of My mercy, as a child into the arms of its beloved mother. Tell them no soul that has called upon My mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul that has placed its trust in My goodness. Write that when they say this Chaplet in the presence of the dying, I will stand between My father and the dying person, not as the Just Judge but as the Merciful Saviour.” (Diary, 1541)
” There is absolutely no excuse for any Catholic not to know what the Church teachings are on divorce and remarriage, on contraception and abortion, on acts of sodomy, on suicide, on assisted suicide or euthanasia because they have always been the same and always will be the same”.
Catherine (beautiful name) you are mistakenly equating (like the user called “ritch” below) the ignorance of the norm with unculpably erroneous conscience (and it is possibile ho have an unculpable erroneous conscience even when you know the norm .
I rewrite
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.
I quote from this http://www.aquinasonline.com/Q…
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.
Amoris Laetitia is 100% thomistic.
Divine Mercy was condemned three times.
Once by Pope Pius XII and twice by Pope John XXIII.
Stay away from this devotion. It was meant to usurp the Rosary.
Say your Rosary instead.
–
There are many reasons to stay away from this “devotion” and they could be found on the internet, but here are a few to start you off.
http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm
–
http://kankakeelatinmass.altaredesign.com/2014/04/22/divine-mercy-origins-thrice-condemned/
” What you describe here, strikes me as wrong. I’m no theologian, but I know that one’s CONSCIENCE has to be rightly formed, and that state could never include DELIBERATELY, PERSONALLY REJECTING the knowable teaching of the Church on the GRAVITY of a particular sin”
Repetita iuvant
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, one also is bound to do the wrong thing if one’s conscience tells one that it is the RIGHT thing to do. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.
As you can see the erroneus conscience is binding and someone sins only when he/she goes against it. That means that if you do know the norm but you have an erroneous conscience you must follow your conscience even at the prize of excommunication.
This is not my theory, this is thomistic doctrine, 100% traditional.
As a catholic you certainly have to know the Church dotrine, but even the Church can’t forde YOU to go agaist your conscience, even if your conscience is erroneous and the Magisterium is right.
It was condemned only because of bad translations, not for anything else. Anyway, i’ve seen death bed conversion thanks to that chaplet, and i’m not the only one.
The Rosary is very important but this is not a “race” between the Rosary and the Chaplet LOL.
The problem with this idea of not blaming someone who does not know the truth regarding the gravity of a sin they are committing, is that it can only mitigate what they have done BEFORE they are informed of the truth.
It is the DUTY of those who know it, ESPECIALLY those who claim to be Catholic, and most especially a priest in a confessional, to DO that informing, and warn them that they risk the fires of HELL if they reject it.
WHY did Jesus send his apostles first to the Jews, to proclaim Him as their messiah, AND NOT CONDEMN THEM FOR REJECTING HIM? DID HE NOT RESPECT THEIR INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES???
Why not? Because He told them the truth, and they rejected it. He then told his apostles that their act of rejection of Him, CONDEMNED THEM.
And HE did not do that informing IN PERSON, he sent His representative to do it.
Withholding the truth about mortal sin from a person with a faulty conscience is an act right out of HELL.
In case that line wasn’t clear, I am asking you why Jesus didn’t REFRAIN from condemning the Jews for their refusal to believe He was their Messiah–based on this ideal of the importance of individual conscience?
The divine mercy devotion comes from a canonized Saint, and we have an official feast when we celebrate it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Mercy_Sunday
If you don’t like it that’s fine by me, just remember that even Saint Father Pio of Pietrelcina was persecuted by the Church in the past, and yet he is perhaps the greatest saint of out times.
John, you wrote:
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. ”
What happens once you directly inform them of what is right??
The Catholic going into a confessional already has an idea that they have sinned. For the priest to delay in conveying to them the gravity of their sin, is morally criminal.
The ridiculous reason I am seeing for this, is that the sinner may be kept in the dark, long enough to persuade them not to reject the truth later. Meanwhile, they continue to repeat the sin, creating a greater VICE in their soul.
I Believe those quoting Aquinas, are misusing his statements about the uninformed, to justify a terrible evil–KEEPING them uninformed.
John,
Our right to “pursue happiness”, is in the secular Declaration of Independence. The Baltimore Catechism teaches we’re to know, love & serve God In This World so we can be happy with Him in The Next. Wanna be happy now? “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul?” I need to be an adulterer so my kids can have …
Confirmandi promise to accept and defend all that the Church teaches, not just what they happen to agree with. The dogmatic teachings of the Church regarding the gravity of sin, are not negotiable.
It is modernism at work again.
This “devotion” was meant to replace devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Rosary.
There is no sacred heart in the Divine Mercy devotion.
The original “apparition” appeared to Sr. Faustina with no wounds !!!!!
“Blood and water” are supposedly represented by the red and white rays of light on the divine mercy image.
Blood and water are “LIQUID” not RAYS of light.
In Sister Lucia’s last vision at Tuy, Spain in 1929, liquid blood did flow forth from Our Lord’s pierced Heart, Hands and Head into a golden chalice.
–
https://www.returntofatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tuy-Vision.jpg
–
Also, Our Lady appeared to the three children at Fatima and asked them (and us) for penance, the Rosary and devotion to Her Immaculate Heart. When only 2 years later (after Our Lady asked for consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart at Tuy, Spain, in 1929), Our Lord supposedly appeared in 1931 to Sr. Faustina with not a word about reparation or penance, but only speaks about mercy, mercy, mercy, then there seems to be a major miscommunication between Our Lord and Our Lady. (And we know that is not possible.)
So much more could be said.
But it all comes back to Fatima.
Anything the modernists could do to distract from Fatima has been done and will continue.
“Divine mercy” devotion does the (distraction) job well.
“The problem with this idea of not blaming someone who does not know the truth regarding the gravity of a sin they are committing, is that it can only mitigate what they have done BEFORE they are informed of the truth.”
That’s not true.
Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of one’s conscience: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. He insists that even the dictate of an erroneous conscience must be followed and that to act against such a dictate is immoral.
As you can see even when you know the norm you must follow your conscience even if it is erroneous, because if you don’t you commit sin.
Even the Magisterium has no right to violate your conscience.
So your argument falls short.
“WHY did Jesus send his apostles first to the Jews, to proclaim Him as their messiah, AND NOT CONDEMN THEM FOR REJECTING HIM? DID HE NOT RESPECT THEIR INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES???”
How ho you know this? He said “Father forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing’ and even Saint Paul said something similar in 1 Corinthians 2,6-8
“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, FOR IT THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY”
And Saint Paul even said in Roman 11,28-32
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
John,
I do not believe that Pope Pius XI, when he condemned this “good faith” idea regarding individual conscience which you claim is based on Thomism and Augustine, and ordered the priests to inform penitents of the truth in the Confessional, was ignorant of the teachings of either of those great Doctors of the Church. Going against him, modernists have left people in their mortal sins. All the name-dropping in the world won’t bring those people back from Hell, or prevent others who are left in such deplorable ignorance, from going there–including their deluded confessors, who are just following bad advice, such as you are. Would you not want a relative in such ignorance to be informed of the truth to save their souls? This is the opposite of Charity, in truth.
It creates scandal to those who obey the teachings of the Church, to allow such dissenters from truth to be considered innocent by virtue of their stubbornness in disbelief. I repeat, why did Jesus not use this respect of erroneous conscience idea, to excuse the Jews who failed to listen to his Apostles when He sent them out to them? Instead, he said, their rejection of that truth, CONDEMNED them. WHY did it not SAVE them from condemnation–according to what you are preaching here?
John, you wrote:
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. ”
What happens once you directly inform them of what is right??
The Catholic going into a confessional already has an idea that they have sinned. For the priest to delay in conveying to them the gravity of their sin, is morally criminal.”
You keep on missing the point: this is not a matter of informing the sinner aout the gravity of their sin.
What i’m trying to explain is that a catholic have the duty to know the Magisterium but his first duty is to follow his conscience.
If he/she can’t understand the gravity of his/her sin (because his/her conscience refuses to do so) they are not guilty of mortal sin, only venial.
That’s the case with most cases concerning sexual morality such ad contraception or the remaireed or premarital sex.
But, is someone feels in conscience that such acts are grave sins and commits them he/she commits mortal sin.
“I do not believe that Pope Pius XI, when he condemned this “good faith” idea regarding individual conscience which you claim is based on Thomism and Augustine, and ordered the priests to inform penitents of the truth in the Confessional, was ignorant of the teachings of either of those great Doctors of the Church. Going against him, modernists have left people in their mortal sins. All the name-dropping in the world won’t bring those people back from Hell, or prevent others who are left in such deplorable ignorance, from going there–including their deluded confessors, who are just following bad advice, such as you are. Would you not want a relative in such ignorance to be informed of the truth to save their souls? This is the opposite of Charity, in truth”.
Straw man. You keep on talking about ignorance of the rules And i keep no repeating you that it’s not what i’m talking about.
“I repeat, why did Jesus not use this respect of erroneous conscience idea, to excuse the Jews who failed to listen to his Apostles when He sent them out to them? Instead, he said, their rejection of that truth, CONDEMNED them. WHY did it not SAVE them from condemnation–according to what you are preaching here?”
And i repeat what i’ve already told you.
JESUS said “Father forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing’ and even Saint Paul said something similar in 1 Corinthians 2,6-8
“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, FOR IT THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY”
And Saint Paul even said in Roman 11,28-32, speaking about the Jews
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
John 8:
Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. .
Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. [32] And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
@John C. Where was there “religious freedom” and freedom of erroneous conscience. Why did Our Lord condemn them for simply not believing what He was telling them?
Answer: Modernism is wrong.
“This “devotion” was meant to replace devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Rosary”
Who made you believe this bullshit?
“Our Lord supposedly appeared in 1931 to Sr. Faustina with not a word about reparation or penance, but only speaks about mercy, mercy, mercy, then there seems to be a major miscommunication between Our Lord and Our Lady. (And we know that is not possible”
The divine mercy devoti is meant to be the last hope for hardened sinners, it is an “excess” of Mercy, like Jesus told to Saint Faustina .
It’s a devotion wanted by the Lord to save even the most hardened sinners, if you want to go against it that’s fine, it’s your responsibility.
Answer: you can’t extrapolate verses from Scripture, because as i showed you Saint Paul says the opposite. Only the Lord knows if the Jews were condamned or not in the end.
“@John C. Where was there “religious freedom” and freedom of erroneous conscience. Why did Our Lord condemn them for simply not believing what He was telling them”
Like i said i don’t know if they are in hell.
Saint Paul seems to hint the opposite
And Saint Paul even said in Roman 11,28-32
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
Even this is Sacred Scripture.
“This “devotion” was meant to replace devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Rosary”
This is ridiculous.
Many people pray the Chaplet AND the Rosary, it’s a fairy tail the idea that this devotion was meant to replace the Sacred Heart or the Rosary.
So you are saying that Our Lord’s own words,
“You shall die in your sins” are over-ruled by a quote from St. Paul about the Jews becoming disobedient for our sakes? Either that, or that they DID die in their sins, and it didn’t prevent their being condemned, all because God is so merciful that His justice is nullified at the moment of death?
Which is it?
Why do you ask how do I know this, when I was quoting Scripture? Jesus sent his Apostles first to the Jews. He told them it would go worse for those who rejected him, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. You claim His prayer from the cross negates all of that.
Salvation is not handed to those who reject Christ.
And more importantly, it is never the duty of the Church not to teach someone the truth because their wrongly formed conscience claims not to believe it. It is especially wrong to then offer to have them join the community of believers and go up to receive Communion, creating grave scandal to those who know they are living in an adulterous relationship. You are acting as if this is not a knowable truth–that every Catholic must believe.
Heresy would not exist under the terms you describe, for every heretic would only have to claim his conscience was forcing him to disavow Church teachings, and according to you, the Church would be obliged to ignore the harm his false ideas would do to his own soul, and to the community of believers.
“So you are saying that Our Lord’s own words,
“You shall die in your sins” are over-ruled by a quote from St. Paul about the Jews becoming disobedient for our sakes? ”
I’am saying we don’t know. The jews condemned the Lord to a horrible death and refuse to believe He was the Messiah, but i don’t know why and the degree of their own personal responsability.
Remember what Saint Paul wrote in Corinthians 2,6-8
“We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, FOR IT THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY”
So i don’t know. I think it’s possible that the Lord gave them a last chance befor their death, but it’s speculation.
Repeating what I wrote above, in part:
Heresy would not exist under the terms you describe, for every heretic would only have to claim his conscience wouldn’t let him feel the Church was right, and was therefore forcing him to disavow Church teachings, and according to you, the Church would be obliged to ignore the harm his false ideas would do to his own soul, and to the community of believers, which they never did in the past. Heresy is defined as the rejection of even one Church teaching. There was never a clause exempting erroneously formed consciences.
You are therefore claiming the Church was wrong not to exempt all of those for the past 2000 years, all because we were left to “grow” into a new understanding of this? Sorry, I can’t buy that.
” Heresy would not exist under the terms you describe, for every heretic would only have to claim his conscience was forcing him to disavow Church teachings, and according to you, the Church would be obliged to ignore the harm his false ideas would do to his own soul, and to the community of believers”.
Heresy is a grave sin But the Church today doesn’t burn at stake anyone for his ideas, no matter how much wrong they are.
The heretic is in grave error, but if he strongly believes he’s right he doesn’t commit mortal sin. Every theologian would confirm you this.
“And more importantly, it is never the duty of the Church not to teach someone the truth because their wrongly formed conscience claims not to believe it.”
Again, this is a straw man. In ever said that the Church shouldn’t teach the truth, i say that if someone disagrees sincerely with the Magisterium with something he has to follow his conscience.
Of course he has the grave duty to examine himself first, because if he agrees with the Church and doesn’t act accordingly he commits mortal sin: he doesn’t commit mortal sin IF He he has a sincerely erroneus conscience.
This has nothing to do with relativism, because everything i’m saying if Thomistic doctrine 100%.
You are preaching to all of us, but when I ask you a simple question, your answer is “We don’t know”.
Jesus said they would die in their sins.
So We DO know they died in their sins. PERIOD.
Our Lord doesn’t speak falsehood, and Scripture is True and useful for correction.
You speak of the Jews as a single group that condemned Jesus to death, whereas Jesus was speaking of individual who had just rejected Him through rejecting the teachings of His Apostles.
Modernists use these tricks of ambiguity and shifting to different scripture quotes and changing the subject, all of which I see here in your answers. You may be convinced you are right, but it appears you are sold on a modernist “bill of good” to me. I say this in all Charity.
God bless you with the truth.
How about the argument that what Pope Francis wrote to the Argentinians is private communication so that can not be an authentic interpretation of his exhortation. Here is what Dr. Jeff wrote “Still others have mocked me publicly for explaining that Pope Francis’ private comments on Amoris Laetitia are definitely not a legitimate guide to whatever Magisterial teaching that document might contain. But that ought to be self-evident. The Pope may privately explain what he intended or what he meant; but the Holy Spirit might well have prevented him from fully capturing his intention in the Magisterial document in question.”
” Heresy is defined as the rejection of even one Church teaching. There was never a clause exempting erroneously formed consciences”
You are confusing the heresy with the eretic: they aren’t the same.
” Heresy would not exist under the terms you describe, for every heretic would only have to claim his conscience wouldn’t let him feel the Church was right,”
And if it’s true he isn’t guilty of mortal sin because he wouldn’t have full awareness.
“the Church would be obliged to ignore the harm his false ideas would do to his own soul, and to the community of believers”
No, the Church has the duty And the right to condemn heresies, but an heresy is an idea, the heretic is a person: the Church today would never do what we did in the past.
Anyway, the problem regarding moral sexuality is on a whole different level.
Try, for exampl, to explain to a teenager that masturbation and french kiss (yes, even french kiss is potentially mortal sin http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html ) are mortal sin and see what they say and think. 😉
,So We DO know they died in their sins. PERIOD.
Our Lord doesn’t speak falsehood, and Scripture is True and useful for correction”
This is not the Magisterium of the Church. The Church never said that someone is damned to hell, so we don’t know what happened to those jews.
This is “period”. We don’t know if they accepted the Lord on the verge of death.
John, do you have an answer to my question of why Pius XI rejected this thinking, knowing he was well aware of the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas, and insisted priests inform penitents of the gravity of their sins? Are you accusing him of being ignorant of the truth about this issue, claiming that God did not fully reveal His will about it till now? The document you linked specifically states it rejects his “rigid” ideas.
Jesus did not say you will remain in your sins till you are on the verge of death. He said, you will DIE in your sins.
My personal response to that is this:
First of all, the affirmation contained in the letter is very unambiguous, and was meant to be applied to many others besides the one receiving the letter.
Secondly, it was made public and then affirmed publicly by the Vatican as the authentic words of the Pope.
That changed it from a private letter to a public affirmation of the contents.
(for anyone who didn’t already know from everything the Pope had said and done to promote this idea before)
Maybe Aquinas was given some insight into the future dangers regarding his speculations on this topic. in 1273, Aquinas, he was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”
Okay, NOW you can accuse me of using a straw man, John. 🙂
“John, do you have an answer to my question of why Pius XI rejected this thinking, knowing he was well aware of the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas, and insisted priests inform penitents of the gravity of their sins? ”
I never said it is wrong to inform penitents of the gravity of their sins. This has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Aquinas said that someone has to sincerly follow his conscience, otherwise he commits sin. One has to follow his conscience even if it is unculpably erroneous and even if it goes against the Church Magisterium.
This, as you can see, has nothing to do with what you said, because the conscience can be erroneous even if someone knows the Magisterium.
If someone, instead, committed certain sins only because he didn’t know the Magisterium and when the confessor tells him the truth he realizes the gravity of his sins, in that case it isn’t a problem of conscience, of “internal forum”, and if he doesn’t follow the Magisterium he commits mortal sin.
“Jesus did not say you will remain in your sins till you are on the verge of death. He said, you will DIE in your sins”.
So what? The Scripture is full of contradicting statements, the correct intepretation belongs to the Magisterium.
Then why did you link the article that was so focused on the rejection of Pius XI’s “rigid” insistence regarding that?
Also, why do you think John Paul II denounced giving Communion to those living in second marriages, without making any mention of this issue of erroneous conscience–especially considering his beliefs regarding St. Faustina?
And lastly, why do you think both the Gospel of St. John, and St. Paul instructed the faithful not to even open their doors or so much as eat with, anyone who held beliefs contrary to what they had received from the Apostles? Would this not directly contradict charity and justice to those you claim are worthy of being deemed only in venial sin. This shunning was reserved for those in anathema for rejection of Church teachings. Whenever it was applied to a brother who had first accepted the Faith, and then rejected a part of it, it was used to call them back to the Truth using every pressure possible, including social ones, for the sake of their own souls, and so as not to scandalize the innocent.
Please do not copy every word of these question if you are answering directly below them. It is unnecessary and annoying to have to wade through them twice to find your response. Thanks.
What about the scandal created by bringing those who are behaving in ways that are objectively mortally sinful, into the community of believers, where they can spread their errors? Jesus condemned an entire church in the Apocalypse, for “tolerating in their midst” the Jezebel, who was influencing others to follow her errors. He said that unless they repent, i.e stop tolerating her presence amongst them, then they would lose their eternal rewards, their lampstand would be removed. Should we not assume she qualified under Aquinas’ theory, as someone simply following her erroneous conscience? Yet Our Lord did not want her near His people.
Regarding GPII it was a matter of pastoral policy: the Church, back in 1981, thought that a more pastoral approach would have given scandal.
Regarding the rest, those were different times in the apostolic era. You can’t make a comparison. The Church was small and under attack and they didn’t have a developed theology.
You have also to remember that they thought the Lord was about to returning.
So What? That’s your response to the simple logic that the words of Our Lord mean what they seem to mean, and not the interpretation you give them by adding the word Verge to them?
Then you pretend this is a contradiction of something which the Magisterium need to rule on?
More obfuscation.
You keep on speaking about the Scripture like a protestant (no offense). 🙂
The interpretation belongs to the Magisterium.
Anyway, i’ve never said that everyone is free from mortal sin: evil people exist, And according to the Scripture Jezabelle was an evil sorceress
I’ve simply said that we don’t know if those jews repented. Period. There is always time to repent as long as you are not dead.
Heck, the Church never said that JUDAS ISCARIOT was damned so what the heck do i know if they repented or not of if they were in bad faith by refusing Jesus?
Anyway, answer to this: we should excomunicate everyone who doesn’t agree 100% with the Magisterium?
According to the Magisterium even a french kiss http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html is a potential mortal sin, so we should excomunicate everyone who doesn’t think making out deserves eternal punishment?
Because you will find very people who agree on this with the Magisterium. 😉
Sorry, not buying it.
The so-called “pastoral approach” does give scandal, as is obviously is doing right now all over the world. Why do you think so many traditional Catholics think the seat of Peter is empty?
The ‘that was another era” argument when the Church was small and under attack, to prevent anyone from making a comparison to our times, (or applying the remedies Paul and Jesus and John all say to apply) is not believable after Pope Benedict announced we have to accept a smaller Church and we all know we are under attack, from without and even from within.
Human nature is the same now as it was in those days.
Jesus Himself gave instructions to shun those who resisted correction, and we are assured by the Scriptures that the Word of God is unchanging and useful for correction for all time. How could HE lack a “developed theology? Please, ask yourself what the reason was for his shunning, those who rejected correction, and then take the answer given by all of the Church fathers for it, -that it was charity in calling sinners back to truth, and protection of those in the community from spreading of their false ideas. Today we have small communities that need that same protection, yet the Pope is forcefully condemning anyone who suggests keeping these people out–as evil and rigid.
We too, think the Lord is about to return. He’s certainly a lot nearer to doing so than He was back then when they were obviously mistaken about that.
So where is there a difference that prevents comparison and application of the laws of human nature to today’s situation?
Think about how much objection there is to shunning anyone, in the world today, and look at the increase in sin from the time that social taboo system was eliminated (in the 1960s) until now. Statistics prove it worked, and removing it caused an explosion of sin.
What has the fact that they believed in the immanent return of Christ, got to do with this discussion? It affected the urgency with which they believed the Gospel needed to be spread. I’m missing your point, there, I guess.
I think you’re putting too much stock in some words of Aquinas, and not enough in the tradition of the Church, including the words of Our Lord in Scripture.
You are caught up in the circuitous snare of the Devil – the relativism, subjectivism, self-centredness of modernism. It leads to further darkening of the intellect and denial of objective truth and reason
When a person reaches the age of reason (ranging from four years to seven) he can recognise the moral truths of the Natural Law. A properly instructed and formed Catholic child knows that marriage is sacred and indissoluble and that the Blessed Sacrament may not be received by one in a state of mortal sin (unabsolved).
The general heretics and apostates known as modernists seek to destroy the basis of all Faith and reason, with false philosophy and theology (anti-Catholic)
The traditionalists are scismatic, but i respect them because, even though i’m sure they are wrong, i think most of them are in good faith and really love the Church. Otherwise they would be risking damnation.
” I think you’re putting too much stock in some words of Aquinas, and not enough in the tradition of the Church, including the words of Our Lord in Scripture”.
I’ve already told you, with the Scripture i could say everything And its opposite, the interpretation belongs to the Magisterium.
I fall back on the Scriptures so much, because all of the teachings I have read from pre-Vatican II Popes, were based on the accepted interpretations of them. What I’ve seen happening SINCE Vatican II, is a re-invention of their meanings by philosophers and theologians once condemned by the Church, whose ideas have been accepted by modernists who have influence many in the Magisterium, who themselves appear to be modernists.
When we compare the words of today’s “magisterium” to that of the Pre-Vatican II era, there are often direct contradictions, in which case, I go to the long accepted ones, to avoid falling into error.
How can you condemn a sorceress as evil under your philosophy? How can you be sure she was not simply following her conscience in what she believed and was teaching? Same goes for those John said not to open the door to, and Paul said not to eat with. They were simply believing and teaching things other than the Gospel. ANYONE would qualify for sincerely follow conscience. That’s my point. No one should be excluded–as the Pope seems to think right now.
It’s corruptive and dangerous, and not in accord with Scripture.
We’re currently in a situation like the Arians I think, where we can’t trust most of those in the magisterium.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing. So we follow the teachings of 2000 years, and reject the novelties that contradict them and appear sinful and dangerous.
What you’re proposing here, is one of those–that we leave people in sin and in our midst, simply because of their wrongly formed consciences.
I believe shunning is what we should be doing, until they accept the truth, as long as we’ve done all we can to convince them they are wrong, first.
Anyway, you didn’t answer: if someone’s conscience can’t believe that french kissing is a mortal sin (And according to the Magisterium it is http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html ) he is invincible ignorant or he is a scandalous sinner that must be excommunicated?
Do you think that people can convince themselves that a just and merciful God will throw them in the lake of fire because of a kiss if they knew this norm?
If the answer is no (and i hope it will) you have a clear example of invincible ignorance.
Excommunication for rejecting defined dogma and the disciplines based on it. Yep. Who needs French kissing to be saved?
Protestants don’t accept all of our Church’s dogmas.
Excommunications for dancing the Tango in the Sanctuary, too. 🙂
But remember the purpose of ex-communication is to recall the sinner to order, for the sake of his soul and others. It’s really all about Love, but the tough Love Our Lord required, is no longer attributed to Him. Modernists have had their way for too long. They should be outed and ousted, along with the top guy.
Well, from the Scripture It seems pretty clear that Jezabelle was evil, and the way Jesus described her leaves little doubts.
People can be evil, there a lot of people who knows the right thing to do and deliberately choose evil.
Anyway, you keep on ignoring my question: if french kiss is a mortal sin (And according to the Magisterium IT IS http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html ) what the Church should do with the 99% of people who will never agree with this norm?
Well, i think yo should excomunnicate 99,99% of catholics, because no one can believe that a just and merciful God will throw him/her in hell for a french kissing…
See what i mean? The Pope is changing the pastoral because most people don’t understand the teachings of the Church regarding moral sexuality and if they can’t understand them their culpability is very low.
Perhaps this same low understanding is the reason Jesus gave the Apostles for teaching with parables to those with deaf ears and blind eyes, and why he painted such a clear picture of what God will not accept from anyone regarding the Sacrament of Marriage.
If a man or woman leave their spouse and marry another, it’s the mortal sin of adultery. He didn’t say unless they REALLY REALLY believe it’s not a deadly sin, in which case, it isn’t, and they should be kept close and accompanied on their journey.
See what I mean? Just a few simple actions make it what it is.
If someone has Ebola and refuses to believe it, really convincing themselves-should we let them stay among the general population and not put them in quarantine?
Why is it any different for the contagion of mortally sinful acts and rejection of Christ’s teaching?
Why should someone even be allowed to be called Catholic, who promises to accept all the teachings at Confirmation, and then rejects one?
Before the throne of God.
“Why did you commit this mortal sin?”
“Sorry Lord, I did not know it was a MORTAL sin.”
God: “Lucky you.”
Come on.
If you are ever in doubt as to whether to kiss a pretty girl, always give her the benefit of the doubt.
~Thomas Carlyle
This is copied and pasted from Tradition in Action website. Our Lady of Good Success is an approved apparition. It has been approved since the 1600s. Our Lady of Good Success appeared in the 1600s specifically for our times, as she says. This means for NOW! WE ARE LIVING IN THE TIMES FOR WHICH SHE CAME. I believe she covers pretty much all the bases in just this short excerpt. This should bring everyone back to the same page. If not, perhaps only prayer will help you see that we ARE in deep crisis. And that the Sacrament of Communion is of course under attack, along with everything else in Our Lord’s Church.
She specifically mentions the attack on marriage and the sacrileges and abuses of the Holy Eucharist. Not mentioned below in this short excerpt, Our Lady of Good Success spoke of marriage in our times being under attack:
“As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word. Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church.
Tradition in Action excerpt:
In 1582, when Mother Mariana was praying before the Blessed Sacrament, for the first time she was given to see the heresy, blasphemy and impurity that would inundate the world as punishment in the 20th century. Our Lady asked her: “My daughter, will you sacrifice yourself for the people of this time?” Mother Mariana replied, “I am willing.” From the violence of the shock of previewing the horrors of our day, Mother Mariana fell dead. Historic and documented evidence record that this holy religious truly died in 1582 and resurrected. Before the divine tribunal, she was given the choice to remain in heaven or return to suffer in the world. Following the example of Our Lady, who left the glories of heaven to protect her children during those difficult first years of the fledgling Church, Mother Mariana chose to return to life to expiate for the great sins of our times.
About the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, she said this: “Masonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws with the objective of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin. … The Christian spirit will rapidly decay, extinguishing the precious light of Faith until it reaches the point that there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs.
In these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury that would conquer innumerable frivolous souls who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent.”
Our Lady continued, describing the abuses that would attack each of the Sacraments: “Woe to the children of these times because it will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism and also that of Confirmation.” She warned that the devil would assiduously try to destroy the sacrament of Confession and Holy Communion. She lamented the many sacrileges and abuses of the Blessed Sacrament that would occur. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction would be little esteemed and many people would die without receiving it, thus denied assistance they would need for that “great leap from time to Eternity.”
The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders would be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. The demon would labor unceasingly to corrupt the clergy and would succeed with many of them. And these “depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings upon the good pastors of the Church.”
John, clearly from reading your posts here, you have been indoctrinated into Modernism and are a true disciple of its false teachings.
I pray that you would set aside the teachings and writings that have served to deceive you and read and study what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, including the many encyclicals written by the popes prior to the Council who warned the faithful of the very errors of Modernism you believe.
St. Bernard teaches, “We are told by the Apostle that when the time is ripe all Israel shall be saved. But those who die beforehand [that is, those who do not convert] will remain in death.”
reminds me of the NUREMBERG TRIALS !!!! we were just following orders ???
The truth is obvious to this once secular Jew who converted to Catholicism but has now rejected the faith entirely. Damon Linker in “The Week” magazine writes: “If there were any doubts that Pope Francis is a stealth reformer of the Roman Catholic Church, the apostolic exhortation, ‘Amoris Laetita’ should settle the matter.
A straightforward reformer of the church seeks to change its doctrines. A stealth reformer like Francis, on the other hand, keeps the doctrines intact but invokes such concepts as mercy, conscience, and pastoral discernment to show priests that it’s perfectly acceptable to circumvent and disregard those doctrines in specific cases. A doctrine officially unenforced will soon lose its authority as a doctrine. Where once it was a commandment sanctioned by God, now becomes an ‘ideal’ from which we’re expected to fall short. Before long it may be treated as a suggestion. Eventually, repealing it is no lnger controversial – or perhaps even necessary.
Stealth reform ultimately achieves the same reformist goal, but without inspiring the intense opposition that would follow from attempting to change the doctrine outright.”
It is this tactic of the Modernist who, using the concepts of mercy, conscience, and pastoral discernment which has helped them to transform the Catholic religion into the religion of Modernism. This diabolical unholy trinity of deceit is event in every change within the Church since Vatican II.
“having it contradicted in the confessional”
You’ve touched on another big problem. If you are going to Confession to a Novus Ordo “Priest” that has not been formed as a traditional Catholic Priest, the absolution he gives is not valid anyway. Novus Ordo “Catholics” are so worried about the SSPX not having the jurisdiction to absolve sins in the confessional, when their biggest fears should be with their priests.
The trouble with the Divine Mercy devotion is that the original diary writings have been reworked along with the image itself.
The Novus Ordo church became a counterfeit church as soon as Pope Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council by declaring, “We have the Cult of Man”. Once the ties with Catholic tradition are severed, the repercussions for the average Joe in the pews are devastatingly negative. The patch work of error builds upon itself until you see a Pope like we have today in Francis (and Benedict).
Millions of consciences are formed in error. Even so called groups like the FSSP who have beautiful liturgies, still tell their people it’s okay to go to a new mass. Only God can judge these souls, but we have every reason to fear for their salvation.
Our Lady of La Salette was seated on a rock crying for good reason. What people believe can be changed by the clergy as we have seen. The errors of a false Catholicism get passed through the generations the same way that other false religions are perpetuated. The rebellion must come. Therefore, stand fast and hold to tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Leaving minds in error and souls in sin is not being charitable. It is one thing to have an understanding of souls and of how they come to be led into error and sin; it is quite another to give error the appearance of truth, and sin the semblance of virtue, and so utterly to mislead them ourselves. Of course, there are nuances involved here, but true charity, wholly made up of faith in Jesus Christ, does not make mistakes, and will not hide the Light under a bushel. It is certainly easier never to contradict, to approve of everything and to create for oneself an easy popularity at the expense of truth, which means at the expense of Our Lord Himself; but that is self-seeking and no exercise of true charity.”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX:
“….NEW DOGMAS, in consequence a NEW DOCTRINE
Firstly sin, which practically doesnt exist any longer since it no longer offends God. We are told that sin does not offend God but harms only the sinner, sin in effect cannot harm the divine nature which is incorruptible. Sin means nothing to God, sin only harms the sinner, causing him to lose the divine life, they concede that, and it equally offends human solidarity. In these conditions sin no longer has the characteristic of offense, of destroying God’s honor, His Glory, His Praise. There is no longer the characteristic of disobeying the law of God. They deny by consequence that God has a right to demand of His creatures, not only praise, but also submission to His divine law, as Saint Ignatius says in his exercises : Man is created to praise, reverence and serve God to save his own soul. Well, praising, reverencing and serving God no longer exists in the NEW RELIGION, since sin no longer destroys the external glory of God, sin only harms man. You can now see how this NEW RELIGION destroys the notion of sin itself, how it destroys God’s glory, how it destroys the notion of sin as the supreme injustice, since it considers only human injustices: but the notion of injustice toward God, of sin against the Justice of God, they do not want anymore.”
“Next, we are told that by sin human dignity is not lost, man keeps his dignity after sin. Man remains dignified. Man remains friendly and sympathetic. By consequence, this is the justification of ecumenism, of religious liberty. No matter what man does in the religious order, that he honors a false god or by a false worship the true God it does not matter, he keeps his dignity. He is thus worthy of regard and respect and thus we must respect his religion and we must by consequence collaborate with other religions, since human dignity is not damaged by sin. This is a second very serious error, which thus justifies ecumenism and religious liberty. Man is dignified, since he remains sympathetic. Well ! God continues to love the sinner, keeping him in his love and favor. Nothing has changed between God and the sinner. God is presented to us as an unmoved, easy-going Lord who accepts all his children’s fancies. His charity is thus ridiculed. God continues to love the sinner without distinction or precision.
Next we are told, by consequence, that God does not punish sin with a temporal or eternal punishment. Since sin does not offend God, God doesn’t punish. God remains goodness itself. How could God inflict punishments on the sinner ? No, it is man who punishes himself by subjection to the consequences of his faults. And hell, if ever one goes there, is merely exclusion, auto-exclusion of divine love. Therefore hell is no longer a punishment inflicted by God. God no longer has the right to punish. By consequence man is washed clean of the duty of reparation towards God. What we call in our cathechism satisfaction for sin, the sinner must make satisfaction for his sins against the divine justice, satisfaction, the need to expiate his sins to repair the honor of God no longer exists. Man must only repair his spiritual health. However reparing God’s glory, cooperating to relieve the fallen creature from sin, to raise it again, they do not want anymore. You know on the other hand that the beautiful Catholic doctrine of satisfaction is all for the greater glory of God, since the sinful man can recover and give back the glory and praise to God and rebuild his fallen nature, by satisfaction, by the punishment he undergoes voluntarily. However this new doctrine, which no longer wants neither sin, nor expiation and satisfaction, goes much further since it will distort the meaning of sufferance and the Redemptive Passion of our Savior. Thus it will distort the dogma of the Redemption.
It is this central dogma which the modernists have attacked. They will say to us : the sufferings of Our Lord on the Cross were intended only to reveal God’s persevering love, but not to satisfy the divine justice in the place of sinful men. Our Lord on the Cross did not offer to his Father any satisfaction. He only revealed to man the love of God His Father. Thus they go altogether contrary to the dogma of the Precious Blood, this law which God put down in the Old Testament, that without the pouring out of blood there is no remission. They refuse the Blood shed by Our Lord with all its expiatory value, of the forgiveness of sins, considering but a free gift by which the Father sent without any reason His Son to die, simply to reveal the love of the Father. This is the most abominable cruelty : the Father sent His Son to a most abominable death, simply to show His Love. They have distorted, emptied the dogma of the Redemption and they BLASPHEME even the holy Passion of our Savior. To the contrary, our catechism teaches that by His Passion Our Lord offered to His Father a superabundant satisfaction for our innumerable sins, partly because of the dignity of the divine person suffering on the Cross, and also because of the extreme charity and obedience by which Our Lord suffers, and finally because of the extreme pain suffered on the Cross. He was then able to offer to His Father for us, in our place, a superabundant satisfaction, almost infinite. It is beautiful to contemplate the Cross : to see our Salvation, our Redemption, our relief: not only the love of the Father, but firstly the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
“In every fashion, we are told in this NEW RELIGION : what good is the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ ? At most it was to reveal the love of the Father but it was not for our salvation, since all are saved anyway. It is certain that by His Incarnation, as stated in the Vatican Council II, in Gaudium et Spes, by His Incarnation the Son of God united Himself in a special way with every man. All men have become Christ-like (christianized) by the incarnation. Therefore all are saved, and that is what Pope John Paul II alludes to in one of his books, that hell is probably empty. All are saved. Thus, you see the anihilation of the dogma of the Redemption, its complete falsification. Sin being suppressed, even God’s justice being suppressed, they suppress the Redemption, the atonement of the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is the NEW RELIGION, the NEW DOGMAS.”
Dear John Coltrane,
Divine Mercy has been thrice condemned.
All is present for you to see clearly.
–
As Catherine said to you above:
“John, clearly from reading your posts here, you have been indoctrinated into Modernism and are a true disciple of its false teachings.
I pray that you would set aside the teachings and writings that have served to deceive you and read and study what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, including the many encyclicals written by the popes prior to the Council who warned the faithful of the very errors of Modernism you believe.”
–
“Let us move on if you would to the NEW WORSHIP, which corresponds with the NEW DOGMA. Well ! first of all in the NEW WORSHIP we are told that the principal act of the Redemption of Our Lord, His first Mass that he celebrated on the Cross after the mass of the Last Supper, thus the principal act of the Redemption, does not consist in the Cross of Our Savior, but rather in the glorious Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord. It is by His Resurrection and Ascension that our Savior would save us. In effect God crowns the work of the Redemption and plainly manifests His Love, the love of the Father for us, in resurrecting His Son, since God is not the God of the dead but of the living. That is all. This is what Pope John Paul II declares. Thus the Cross of Christ is an event rather secondary in the Redemption, the essential work being the Ressurection and Ascension of our Savior.
After we are told that the principal act of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Lord Jesus Christ as priest, does not consist of the bloody offering of His sacrifice on the Cross, but essentially in His heavenly priesthood, by which He therefore, crossing the tent of the heavenly sanctuary, He presents Himself to His Father with His Blood. Thus they will DENY that the principal act of the priesthood is to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord on His Cross…”
“…it is a religion without sin, without justice, without mercy, without penance, without conversion, without virtue, without sacrifice, without effort, but simply an auto
consciousness…”
“…REJECT WITH HORROR, my dear faithful, my dear ordinands, THIS NATURAL RELIGION, THIS INTELLECTUALIST RELIGION, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, and be on the contrary very firm, always more firmly persuaded of the reason of our combat, of the reason of our priesthood…”
In a 2008 interview with Tele Radio Padre Pio (recently posted at Rorate Caeli), Cardinal Carlo Caffara (Archbishop of Bologna) said:
What Sister Lucia told me: Final Confrontation between the Lord and Satan will be over Family and Marriage.
Phew !!!! I feel I need to take a good shower ?
It is possible for the one who celebrates a Sacrament differently (Novus Ordo) using the correct matter, to produce a valid Sacrament. But, the one who receives the Sacrament does not receive the reality (grace) of the Sacrament, unless he can separate himself from the errors of the one celebrating it differently. -St Thomas Aquinas
These words should terrify anyone who goes to a new mass. For this person to receive the graces at Communion, he would have to beat his breast from the start and plead for mercy for himself and the celebrant. How many do this?
It is equally terrifying to realize that the absolution given by today’s Novus Ordo priest is in all likelihood invalid, because it is not based upon correct Catholic moral teaching. Once the ties with tradition are severed, the patch work of errors multiply and fold back upon themselves. This has been going on since 1970.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…we must not forget the Masonic plans published by Pope Pius IX. More than a century ago, they spoke of a world government imposing the Masonic ideas. They were made public by Jacques Crtineau-Joly upon orders of Pope Pius IX.
We must not forget also the prophecies of the most holy Virgin Mary. She warned us: without the Conversion of Russia, without conversion of the world, without prayer and penance, communism shall invade the whole world. What does that mean? We know very well that the goal of the secret societies is a world government, with Masonic ideals, i.e. the rights of men, equality, fraternity and liberty, understood in an anti-christian sense, against Our Lord. These ideals would be promoted by a world government, which would establish a kind of socialism for all countries and then a congress of religions, encompassing all religions, including the Catholic Religion, in the service of this world government, as the Russian Orthodox are in the service of the soviets. There would be two congresses: a universal political congress, which would control the whole world, and this Congress of religions, which would support this world government, in a mercenary way.
These things threaten us. We must prepare ourselves. Faced with this, what should we do?
In his encyclical on Free-Masons, Pope Leo XIII said: “They want to utterly destroy all Christian institutions. This is their goal.” They are getting close!
And we, we must build them again! We must stand up against this destruction. This is what you are doing, and I congratulate you. I shall never congratulate you enough. I am sure of telling you what God, what Our Lord, what the most Blessed Virgin want to tell you: continue, continue to do what you are doing.
Everywhere schools, priories are springing up. Parishes are multiplying in many countries. Everywhere churches are being acquired for Tradition. We must build again the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this Christian world, which is disappearing.
You shall tell me: “But, Monseigneur, this is the fight of David against Goliath!” yes, indeed, I know. But in his fight against Goliath, David won the victory! How did he win the victory? By a little pebble which he took from the torrent. What is this little stone, which we have? Jesus Christ! Our Lord Jesus Christ! We shall say with our ancestors from Vende: “We have no other honor than the honor of Jesus Christ. We have no other fear in the world than to offend Jesus Christ!” They went to their death to defend their God singing this! We also, let us sing with courage, wholeheartedly: “We have no other love than Our Lord Jesus Christ, no other fear than to offend Him!”
We shall pray to the most Blessed Virgin to help us in this fight…
We are convinced that the most Blessed Virgin, our good Mother who is always in the heart of the fight, encourages us. She came on earth to request that we fight, fearlessly, because she is with us.
Consecrating our families, our persons, our cities, our countries, our homelands, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we are convinced that she shall come to our help and that she will manage to make us come with her one day in Eternal Life.”
John Coltrane – From St. Alphonsus Maria Liquori, Bishop and Doctor of the Church: It does not suffice to say: “If I had known that such a thing were forbidden by the law of God, I would have conformed.” St. Paul, in persecuting Christians, previous to his conversion, DID NOT THINK HE WAS COMMITTING EVIL; the same may be said of Jews who persecuted and crucified Christ. AND YET, Saint Paul and these Jews WERE NOT innocent and excusable. If they died in that state, they would NEVER HAVE BEEN SAVED. Hence, St. Paul, DESPITE THE GOOD FAITH he acted on, acknowledges that he was at that time a blasphemer, and unjust: a persecutor of the Church. If therefore, a person BE IGNORANT of what is commanded or forbidden because he has not studied the law of God, his IGNORANCE DOES NOT EXCUSE HIM FROM SIN. ~ St. Alphonsus Maria Liquori.
If IGNORANCE is not a sin, then Saul did not sin when he persecuted the Church, because he surely did this IN IGNORANCE. Therefore, he should not have said: “I obtained the MERCY of God” (1 Tim. 1:13), but rather “I received my REWARD.” ~ St. Bernard, Doctor of the Church
It follows that IGNORANCE has the nature of mortal sin on account of either a preceding negligence, or the consequent result; and, for this reason, IGNORANCE is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. ALL sin proceeds from IGNORANCE. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas
“DH says the freedom of every man to practice inwardly and outwardly the religion of his choice, is based of “the dignity of the human person, in this view, liberty is based on dignity, Man can hold any error whatever in the name of his dignity………… whoever clings to error loses his dignity and can no longer build upon it. Rather, the foundation of liberty is truth, not dignity. “The truth will make you free,” When Eve the first sinner succumbed, she said, “The serpent deceived me.” Her sin and that of Adam led to the downfall of human dignity We cannot then make the downfall the cause of liberty. On the contrary, adherence to truth and the love of God are the principles of authentic religious liberty”
I admit I don’t have the time, patience or desire to read every word of all these comments. However, I’m wondering in regard to the divorced and re-married, did anyone mention the annulment process which would at least be an attempt to “make things right” in a Catholic sense. Please–I know, I know!!–the annulment process is overused, misused and has been called “Catholic divorce”–which in many cases is correct. However, it is still (in the eyes of the world), a “Catholic” response. I don’t know of any other religion which provides for annulment even by another name. If Francis’ document had urged divorced Catholics to seek advice regarding annulment before admitting them to Holy Communion, it would at least have been in line with Catholic teaching—as imperfect as it is. I simple response will do. I appreciate the passion and enthusiasm all of you share for the Holy, Roman Catholic Church though it manifests itself in different forms.
Getting back to Louie’s question: Is Francis a heretic? The big question really is: Will Francis ever be officially and absolutely declared a heretic by the powers that be? No don’t think so.
All three quotes are awesome.
Thank you, johnjobilbee.
John, this article is a perfect example of the Modernist tactic of deceit.
In their writings they are careful to expound, and agree with the perennial teachings of the Church in their first paragraphs but there is always a “but”, a “however”, a “nevertheless” and this is where they teach their errors. It is a perfect method to confuse and contradict while the reader, remembering their first paragraph(s) as stating the orthodox, is then led on to the “exceptions” which are always given prime coverage.
Once the Church tells the person the action is grave matter, the person has full knowledge. Period. If he rejects the Church’s teachings he’s simply adding mortal sin to mortal sin.
Even if he/she doesn’t quite understand why it’s grave matter, he/she is bound to submit his/her intellect and will to the Church.
Seems to me like the catechism citation you are bringing up is referring to a situation where the person is legitimately ignorant of Church teaching and is erroneously convinced that something gravely sinful isn’t. Thus, in that situation, the person doesn’t act in a mortally sinful way since full knowledge isn’t present.
But again, once a person knows what the Church teaches, he’s bound to accept it. “He who hears you hears Me, etc.” Dude that Catholicism 101.
If Father Ratzinger wrote somewhere (you don’t include a citation) one should make their conscience their only authority, malformed or misinformed, and rather suffer excommunication from Christ’s Church and thus, damn themselves for eternity, one must question not only his orthodoxy but his sanity.
Annulment is simply the formal declaration of a finding of fact by the proper authorities that a particular apparent marriage never actually came into being. For a marriage to come into existence, certain essential criteria must be fulfilled. If they are not, then no marriage came into being, though it may have appeared that it did.
The authorities are to find out whether or not the parties got married/are married to each other.
(There is a separate matter of a voidable marriage but this can be overcome by the two parties subsequently validating the marriage by their intent.)
This John Coltrane poster is a modernist troll guys.
Ridiculous. I don’t think he even believes his own bs, but I suppose anything’s possible.
“The Church can’t forbid you to go against your conscience, even if your conscience is erroneous and the Magisterium is right.”
Well what is the purpose of the Church but to teach what God revealed to be true and what is necessary for the salvation of the soul which includes the formation of one’s conscience, and will, to believe and accept His revealed truths?
What the Modernist does is never teach the truth so that one’s conscience is not properly formed. Then they can excuse the one who sins “in ignorance” and they don’t have to admonish or condemn the sin, and the person is left to continue in sin and believe they are doing no wrong. That is exactly what their “pastoral” approach has been.
Thank you for the insight, CraigV.
“Amoris Laetitia and Vademecum I posted is 100% thomistic.”
No they are not. Both are diabolical and heretical.
“A lot of couples don’t understand why God should damn them to Hell…”
How many who claim they are Catholic believe there is a Hell or if they do, believe there is anything at all they can do that sends them there?
The audacity of Pope John Paul II still astounds me after all of these years. To think that after the attempt on his life, JPII read the Third Secret of Fatima carefully, and then hatched the plan to claim that he was the “Bishop dressed in white”! Then to Consecrate the world instead of Russia, sending upwards of $100 million to Poland’s Solidarity Union and calling the world’s false religions to Assisi to pray for peace. It was all an attempt to ape Our Lady’s authentic formula for peace. A formula that would spell the end of the Modernist takeover of the Church. To that possibility John Paul II emphatically declared by his actions, not on my watch!
This entire post reveals how man has become his own god.
How I feel, not what God has taught leads us to true happiness and love is how my conscience is formed.
Thank you, Lynda. If Francis would have urged divorced and remarried Catholics to seek annulment, this document would not have been so heretical. That’s just my opinion. Sadly, the typical N.O. Catholic probably thinks Amoris Laetitia is a foreign movie.
You are arguing that anyone can commit any kind of sin and all that needs to be done is claim ignorance.
Not true.
Christian Order has an article that points out explicit heresies in this document. Paragraphs 296, 297, and 305 in particular.
John , natural law is written on the heart of every man. We all know we should not snuff the life out of another human being. We also know that babies growing inside of us are people. No matter what argument is thrown at us by the pro death crowd, they had to be convinced at some point that it isn’t a human with rights. They had to accept a false argument, one that defies reason. One that goes against what we inherently know to be true. I’m not sure that you could ever qualify a murder, in any case other than mental retardation, with invincible ignorance.
Oh, and what’s up with the AC/DC thumbnail? Come….on. No wonder you are showing signs of confusion. No insult meant by the observation. Just do yourself a favor and take a few minutes to read the hellish lyrics that that band is known for. There is no such thing as playing in the devil’s sandbox, without getting sand in your shoes.
Though I could be mistaken, I’m not inclined to think “commenter John” was a troll, after reading what Dr. Richard A. Spinello (Boston prof. and JPII expert) wrote about JPII’s teachings on conscience.
In his battle with other modernists, it looks like Francis and Co, are on John’s side of the issue. I get morbid thoughts reading their philosopy, and others here may grasp more of the dangers contained therein for that reason.
This link is to an article explaining how JPII took the same Aquinas- ideas we read above, and added a caveat to them which I don’t see mentioned here, which make JPII look like a conservative in comparison, and explains why he affirmed the Church’s stance AGAINST Communion for those living in Adultery-with no mention of the possibility of it being only a venial sin for some.
(Though I can’t say whether he believed it could be but would create scandal).
For anyone interested here is the link, and some quotes that got my attention.
http://www.hprweb.com/2009/08/pope-john-paul-ii-on-conscience/
Dr. Spinello writes:
“Wojtyla makes it clear that conscience does not have the power to make its own moral laws”, for “conscience is no lawmaker.”
“The Pope recognized the need for a proper understanding of conscience.. he was concerned with those who sought to undermine the orthodox doctrine of conscience with more subjectivist notions. Not only has this doctrine been distorted by some revisionist theologians, who diminish the moral law’s decisive role in human development, it has also been corrupted in modern culture. In recent centuries the notion of “authenticity” has displaced the traditional conception of conscience. The person is supposedly guided by an “inner voice” to make authentic moral choices that are consistent with his or her particular value system. Conscience is also equated with a Freudian superego, which makes us aware of superficial and conventional social standards.
The pre-cursor of this idea was Nietzsche, who reduced conscience to the sublimation of instinct.”
“In the face of all this confusion… one of the aims of the Pope’s writings was to re-affirm the Church’s TRADITIONAL understanding of conscience and to elaborate on Vatican II’s concise presentation on this theme.
While the Pope’s treatment of conscience is generally consistent with the philosophy of AQUINAS, there is a deeply spiritual dimension to his reflections that sets them apart from the tracts on moral theology used in the pre-conciliar Church.” [flashing red light?]
“The Second Vatican Council had emphasized the need for a RENEWAL of moral theology.. Perhaps the Council Fathers would have elaborated on this matter in more precise language had they known what was looming for the Church in the wake of Humanae Vitae and the claims that conscience was the ultimate arbiter of sexual morality.”
SOME theologians – maintained Vatican II distanced itself from moral legalism while supporting the autonomy of conscience.
They have also argued that John Paul II REVERSED Vatican II’s revised understanding of conscience.
ONE theologian contends- the Pope has “re-contextualized” Vatican II’s presentation of conscience in Gaudium et Spes into a “framework of law.”
Where the council had highlighted “the law of love” and a “communal search for truth,” John Paul II puts unwarranted emphasis on ADHERENCE TO OBJECTIVE NORMS OF MORALITY. Moreover, the Pope has refused to acknowledge the apparent stipulation in Gaudium et Spes that conscience is ONLY GUIDED by moral laws that must be flexibly applied to concrete situations. According to this interpretation, Gaudium et Spes claims that through conscience the “objective norms of morality” function only as a “guide” for “persons and groups” in their search for truth.
But a careful reading of the definitive Latin text of Gaudium et Spes says otherwise…. First, the council is not referring to a general “law of love” in paragraph 16 but to the natural moral law which bids us to “do good and avoid evil,” a clear allusion to the first principle of the natural law.
Second, the search for truth referred to in the document is not some subjective, existential quest that leads people in contradictory directions to find their own customized version of the truth. Rather, we find the general moral truth specified in the objective norms of morality, such as the moral precepts revealed in or derived from the Decalogue. These specific norms allow us to work out true solutions to specific moral problems.4 The quest for moral truth might be a communal process, but this doesn’t imply that moral truth is arbitrary or that there is room for some type of “creative acceptance” of that truth. Finally, these objective norms are far more than a “guide,” which is a poor translation offered for the Latin word,conformari (conform).5 According to Gaudium et Spes, “to the extent that a correct conscience prevails, persons and groups are turning away from blind choice, seeking to conform to the objective norms of morality.”
This presentation is generally consistent with the Thomistic view…. etc etc…”
This article only adds to my conviction that the ambiguity of the documents of Vatican II has caused so much confusion and error to flourish in the Church and in the world, that calls for it’s clarification would only lead to more confusion.
Into the Trash-bin of Church history, I think someone rightly placed it.
GOOD one, Paul. 🙂
Regarding John C.’s claim (somewhere above) that heresy is not a mortal sin, depending on the person’s ideas–
Catholic Enclyclopedia:
“Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its MALICE is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: “All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief ( infidelitas)
IS THE GREATEST SIN IN THE WHOLE RANGE OF PERVERSITY.”
Doesn’t sound to me like it’s something to mess around with.
Someone her quoted “Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s:…”
I would like to remind people that just because a person is a Saint, or even a doctor of the Church,, every word they utter or wrote does not automatically become “Catholic Teaching” and does not posses the authority of Sacred Scripture nor Tradition.
It is a plague on Catholic thinking to make endless appeals to authority figures besides the only One that counts
Jesus said “no divorce” end of discussion.
Jesus said “no adultery” end of discussion.
No one in the Church ever has the authority to overrule Jesus Christ.
So what you are saying is that St Thomas Aquinas, who was never a Pope was:
1. always correct.
2. never wrong.
3. the source of all Catholic teaching
It never crossed your mind that St Thomas could have been wrong? You have in fact raised St Thomas to a position equal to that of Jesus Christ… congratulations.
You have rightly and often cited Sacred Scripture in your posts and the one passage that is important when evaluating Vatican II and its aftermath is: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The good tree does not bear bad fruits. The Modernists who ruled the day in this council have cut themselves off from the True vine and their branch is withering and dying as it has no Life to sustain it forever. Their fruits are rotten to the core.
Ephesian 4 17-24
17 Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; 18 they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; 19 they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. 20 You did not so learn Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. 22 Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
In this passage Saint Paul teaches the exact opposite of what St Thomas Aquinas and the Modernists teach. Ignorance of a darkened mind does not give you the life of God, and is not an excuse to keep sinning. Such people are alienated from the life of God.
His long pontificate gave the Modernist heretics/apostates the time needed to fully indoctrinate the faithful into their new religion knowing it could not be done but incrementally. JPII still had some remnants of belief in the true Catholic faith but was certainly a faithful servant of the heresies of Vatican II so he was the perfect instrument at that time for the Modernists to continue unabated their goal of destroying the Catholic religion completely.
John, helpuslord has been patiently trying to lead you out of the Modernist errors you have been deceived into believing are Catholic teachings.
Why you continue to deny the Truth only you and God know, yet it would be good for you and your soul if you were persuaded to accept and believe the Truth.
I pray daily that every Modernist converts to the true faith.
Yes, you’re saying we don’t know if those Jews repented, in direct contradiction to Our Lord’s prophetic words about them. “You WILL die IN YOUR SINS”
He didn’t say you risk dying in them, as He did when warning us about anger towards a brother, for example making us “risk” the fires of Gahenna.
I am aware that anyone may change up until the moment of death, and may make a perfect act of contrition. What I see you doing here, is picking and choosing what you will believe or not believe about things Our Lord said, in order not to allow them to prove you wrong.
Yes, we are seeing and smelling this rottenness all around us today. Churches closing, those remaining in many of them, Catholic in name, only, and what looks like a remnant, growing in the Faith of Old under persecution.
I just read an article on Eponymous flower, which claims the Vatican has shut down 15 of their convents, and, even worse,
Allowed them to keep 3 vows and TAKEN AWAY THEIR 4TH VOW–THE ONE WHERE THEY CONSECRATE THEMSELVES TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY.
To me, there could be no surer sign of diabolical corruption than that–and it’s all being done in the name of the spirit of VII–making the orders more unified.
The above information refers to the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
The “…convoluted scenarios wherein women are forced to engage in sex against their will…” constitute rape. Mirus and Gahl are essentially arguing, wittingly or not, that being raped justifies living in adultery and receiving communion.
I’m not against being further educated by those with higher learning. I am against higher learning being used as an excuse to justify scandal–meaning things that lead people to remain in sin, and that lead others to imitate them.
Whatever Aquinas and other philosophers and theologians were exploring regarding conscience, can never justify welcoming adulterers and other doers of intrinsically evil acts, with open arms into our communities where we teach obedience to the Laws of God by word and example.
This Pope’s actions, along with all who practice modernism have led to worldwide scandal. Canadian Bishops just published a disclaimer to prevent remarrieds from freely approaching for Communion. Irish Headlines read:
DIVORCED/REMMARIED CATHOLIC CAN NOW RECEIVE COMMUNION
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/divorcedremarried-catholics-can-now-receive-communion
These people are destroying my Church. GOOD CARDINALS, WHERE ARE YOU???
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS APPLY ST. CORBINIAN’S BOB NEWHART REMEDY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQGzeiYS_Q
So right. And all in the name of liberty of conscience.
Pope Gregory XVI wrote in his encyclical “Mirari Vos”
14. .. that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.
“But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.
Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth.
“Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty. “
This Newhart routine (linked above) got me laughing despite these depressing topics. 🙂
It was not condemned because of faulty translations. This diary AND the image were condemned because of the falseness and ERROR they presented.
In the DM image, where are the Sacred Wounds still present on our Lord, even today?
Where is His Sacred Heart?
In the diary are so many instances of false mercy, mercy supposedly given to people who don’t even have contrition in their heart, nor any intentions to amend one’s life. (Sounds like the garble that Francis the Modernist spews with his “Year of Mercy”.)
“Mercy for you! Mercy for YOU! And you and you and you! Everyone gets some mercy!”
Mercy comes with CONTRITION and amendment away from a sinful life.
And the Blessed Sacrament kept flying out of the tabernacle and into Faustina’s unconsecrated hands? Christ would not contradict His own Church and all that was declared by Her at Trent.
I had to stop reading that DM diary after “Christ” claimed to love Faustina more than ANY OTHER CREATURE. Really?! I’m pretty sure He loves His Blessed Mother just fine.
This devotion is New Church, with its own everything: its own mass, council, saints, popes, calendar, rosary, pentecost, catechism, code of canon law…and yes, its own devotion. Think about that when you hail such error.
Ah, the Modernist delusional two step. Where the basic laws of reality i.e. intellect, will, conscience are all somehow trumped by some mythical force that doesn’t allow the person with a brain and free will to be held responsible for grave sin even though they are informed and with God’s grace, able to do the right thing.
I’ve read your links. The first uses some Vatican II reference to bolster it’s claim…Vatican II being a non-binding and non-doctrinal council overtaken by Modernists. The second link to Aquinas doesn’t quote Aquinas at all. It just quotes someone interpreting Aquinas. I think the operative phrase even in each of these quotes deals with the person being “aware of the facts”. Invincible ignorance is one thing, but once you’re told, then *poof* goodbye ignorance, hello culpability.
As far as I ever read, there is no such thing as “invincible erroneous judgement.” That would imply that the faculties God gave us to disseminate truth i.e. intellect, conscience etc. are broken. Now there could be instances where such faculties ARE broken like brain damage. But those occasions are rare and obvious and not in play here.
The reasons someone would still insist that their heresy is true even though objectively it isn’t would be:
A) Mental retardation/brain damage
B) No conscience/sociopath
C) They are under God’s iniquity i.e. because of their long term refusal of His will and pursuit of sin God blinds their intellect to the truth.
Someone cannot “sincerely” disagree with a doctrine/dogma of the Deposit of Faith and still consider themselves a Catholic. Sincerity implies honesty, and yet this person is promoting a lie/heresy which with an ounce of humility and faith they might be able to see if they rightfully submitted to the authority of the Church. The Church was very healthy spiritually when it burnt heretics at the stakes. IDEAS are more real than anything in the physical sphere…they are eternal, immortal, spiritual and have the capacity to commit eternal murder, which is exactly what a heretic does, and thus is very deserving of the stake.
As for the other article, who the heck cares what a hormone ridden, worldy teenager thinks? They are morons…I know…I was one. If they were actually formed correctly, taught the truth about the dangers of self abuse (brain damage, dopamine addiction, porn, hell) and french kissing (simulating the sex act, triggering the sex hormones, blinding them to rational thought and thus not being able to choose a spouse based on reason, friendship and virtue but shallow emotions and passing hormones instead and exposing them to further behavior that could lead to pregnancy and thus child abuse).
The excuses given for people committing adultery are all mired in emotionalism. True happiness is based on living a life of virtue, goodness, purity, holiness, self sacrifice etc. What is described in the examples is self centered emotionalism and pleasure. It is disturbing to think why people could not rationally understand why they would go to hell because they are committing adultery: they are breaking the vows they made before God and others, they are destroying a family, they are lying to themselves and each other, causing scandal and cooperating with the breakdown of society etc. Marriage and life are not about shallow emotionalism, they are about knowing, loving and serving God here so you can be happy with Him in the next life.
God wants people to pick up their cross and follow Him. How is poking your mistress going to reflect that reality? How will refraining from it harm children? Why would someone stay with their adulterer knowing that they would leave if they didn’t “get some”? What child would want to have a parent who they knew just couldn’t “keep it in his pants”?
From what I recall of St. Thomas, he did promote following the conscience even if the act went against Church teaching. However, this was not a general rule, it was dependent on distinctions and rules. For examples, someone could steal a loaf of bread if they were starving. Yes, stealing is wrong and it would be considered venial sin, but it would prevent death which made it venial. But when it comes to intrinsic evils, from what I recall, there are no loopholes. Intrinsic evil anytime and anywhere is mortal.
Please provide a link to the exact writings of St. Thomas that support the idea of “invincible erroneous judgement” that states that even with a clear conscience (which assumes a conscience that is formed correctly), with full knowledge and consent of the will, someone could support and commit and intrinsic evil and not be culpable (assuming they are not demented). For I certainly have not been able to find it.
Finally, I find it concerning that the avatar of Mr. Coltrane is that of a demonic rock band. One of the dangers of modernism is thinking that we can retain a foot or torso in the filth of the world and not be affected by it. Yet we have a jealous God who calls us out of the world to be a light and salt to it. “In it, but not of it”. Maybe get free of the demonic influence the world is inflicting on you and maybe Our Lord will show you the beauty, truth and goodness that is Catholic Tradition:+)
Oh, and I almost forgot. Judas Iscariot? I don’t know about you but I certainly would not have liked Our Lord to say the following about me:
“and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction” John 17:12
“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” Acts 1:18
“For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21
“Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” John 6:70
So yeah…Judas is in hell. Just because the Church hasn’t formally declared it doesn’t mean it’s not true. And this whole post is to help you and every modernist alive avoid that same fate…we might not seem to, but we care…the time and effort it takes to respond to posts like yours proves it. Go after truth, objective truth based on reason, logic, historical fact, Tradition…it’s the only thing that sets us free:+)
God bless~
Thanks, Loved it 😉
You people don’t know anything about catholic theology on sin and culpability; you should not talk about things you don’t know. I quote from Here http://www.katapi.org.uk/MoralTH/Ch5.htm#Ignorance
” A much greater problem is raised by the condition of error about a moral question even after long discussion and reflection; is it possible, for example, for a man to be invincibly ignorant that adultery is wrong, to take the case which St. Thomas himself instances? We have already glanced at this problem, when speaking of the precepts of the natural law and of the possibility of ignorance in regard to them. For St. Thomas, fornication was a thing so obviously wrong that no one could think it right, unless he were wilfully blind to facts and deliberately negligent in considering what is his duty. In the case of polygamy, he did apparently recognize that backward peoples might fail to see the reasons for its condemnation, and might conscientiously approve its practice. In other words, the wrongness of polygamy is not immediately obvious as that of fornication is. In general, traditional moral theology has assumed that invincible ignorance is possible where the matter in question is obscure or doubtful, but impossible in regard to actions that are obviously wrong. Yet even here it is recognised that exceptions are possible. St. Alphonsus, in discussing the matter (Lib. I, Tract n, cap. 4, sub. i, no. 171), quotes Gerson as saying that on occasion there may be invincible ignorance of even the primary principles of the natural law, as when someone is convinced that he ought to tell a lie in order to save his friend’s life. And he gives his own opinion in these words, “I have never been able to understand how a man sins, when, after taking all proper steps to inform himself, he still labours under invincible ignorance” (no. 173). He therefore recognizes, it would seem, that, even after long investigation and reflection, a man might arrive at and hold an opinion about the morality of an action that is at variance with the truth. When this happens, the ignorance is invincible, and that not only when there is ignorance that there is any other point of view, as in the cases imagined by St. Thomas, but also in the full face of all the arguments; and face obedience to conscience then merits no blame.
It is of the greatest importance, however, to know whether the ignorance is truly invincible or not.
The first and most revealing test is given by the question “Did any doubt, at any time, arise?”
If the answer is truthfully “No”, it is probable that the ignorance is invincible.
This is the case of those brought up in a closed environment where certain moral rules are taken for granted and never questioned. If the answer is “Yes”, all depends on what steps were then taken. For the ignorance is clearly vincible through negligence if, in spite of a recognised doubt, nothing was done to arrive at the truth. The easy suppression of a doubt by reference to the practice of many contemporaries, and the refusal to enquire further, is evidence of moral levity. If, on the other hand, anxious enquiry followed, books were read, due care and attention was given to the opinions of authoritative persons, due respect was paid to traditional Christian teaching, and a certain, though wrong conclusion finally reached, then the ignorance may be judged invincible. Though any individual must hesitate long before he can assure himself that he is right and the world is wrong, yet it is possible for him to arrive at that conclusion in all honesty. I may, after anxious thought and consultation, decide that it is my duty to commit a murder (others, that is, call it a murder, I do not. For murder is ex hypothesi wrong, but I adjudge this act in these circumstances to be right, a justifiable homicide), and in that case my error, if it be an error, is invincible, and I am not to blame if I proceed to action; on the contrary, I deserve blame if I refrain from action”.
As you can see someone can reach a moral judgment contrary to the Magisterium even if he knows the norm.
This has always been the theology of the Church and it is exactly what is taught in Amoris Laetitia
“301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A SUBJECT MAY KNOW FULL WELL THE RULE, YET HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN UNDERSTANDING “ITS INHERENT VALUES”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well; in other words, although someone may possess all the infused moral virtues, he does not clearly manifest the existence of one of them, because the outward practice of that virtue is rendered difficult: “Certain saints are said not to possess certain virtues, in so far as they experience difficulty in the acts of those virtues, even though they have the habits of all the virtues”.
As you can read from the quote i posted from here http://www.katapi.org.uk/MoralTH/Ch5.htm#Ignorance it is possible for someone to have a conscience that unculpably differs from the Magisterium even if he/she knows very well the norm.
“It is a plague on Catholic thinking to make endless appeals to authority figures besides the only One that counts”.
I totally agree with you. The Magisterium and only the Magisterium has the authority to interpret the Bible, and the Magisterium relies on thomistic doctrine.
“In this passage Saint Paul teaches the exact opposite of what St Thomas Aquinas and the Modernists teach. Ignorance of a darkened mind does not give you the life of God, and is not an excuse to keep sinning. Such people are alienated from the life of God.”
The Magisterium has always recognized that people can inculpably have a conscience that inculpably differs from the teachings of the Church on moral issues, even if they know the norm.
This is catholic theology, you are free to disagree And think that inculpable erroneous conscience doesn’t escuse the sinner, but the Church has always taught these things about mortal sin.
Jesus didn’t say, “you are married until some faggot in a bishop’s robe gives you a pieces of paper that sez you are not.”
Jesus did not day “go on boinking your new live in girlfriend cause some dipshit Pope sez its OK.”
The faithful can smell a a liar and a lawyer a mile away,
I have a big problem with Catholics who worship “the Magisterium” as if the word itself should make you weak in the knees. The magisterium in not a source of truth, like Scripture and Tradition, its there to serve the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is all it is for. Some people just cannot accept that people in the Church who actually make up “the Magisterium” including Popes and Saints can just be plain wrong.
John,
Please correct me… is not this katapi.org from the heretic Church of England, as is the author of this Elements of Moral Theology from which you quote?
Are you sure you are not protestant? http://www.catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm
Those are the teachings of the Church, the teachings that our Catholic Church alway taught since the Council of Trent (in those times the Catholic Church adopted the thomistic doctrine).
You didn’t answer. Is it of the Church of England?
Yes but it doesn’t matter, because that book teaches the same things taught by the Magisterium regarding mortal sins.
Do you want to proof? Here https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/invincible-ignorance-in-salvation-theology/ we have a 100% catholic site that teaches the exact same things.
I’m going to add enphasis on some points.
” Invincible ignorance is a lack of knowledge, on a matter of faith or morals, without grave culpability for that ignorance. The ignorance is termed invincible, though not in an absolute sense. For all the truths of the eternal moral law needed to avoid sin are accessible to reason alone, apart from Divine Revelation. Thus, it MIGHT SEEM as if invincible ignorance should never occur in the realm of morality. But it does occur because fallen sinners, living in a sinful world, HAVE DIFFICULTY CORRECTLY DISCERNING MORAL TRUTH. The human person is OFTEN UNABLE TO MAKE A COREECT JUDGMENT on a matter of faith or morals, due to ignorance and the influence of sinful society, despite a sincere conscience.
Acts that are gravely immoral, which might possibly be committed with a sincere but mistaken conscience, may include the decision not to become a Christian or a Catholic, or the decision not to believe in God. It is objectively a grave sin to reject the Church. But some persons might do so with invincible ignorance. They see the sinfulness of Christians, including many Catholics, and so they conclude that our religion is not as holy as we claim it to be. They see the sinfulness of many believers, and so they conclude that believers might be mistaken about the existence of God.
Atheists, agnostics, believers who reject Christianity, Christians who reject Catholicism, persons living in sin (i.e. cohabitating or divorced and remarried), homosexuals living in sin or in a same-sex marriage, and many other persons who seem lost, CAN STILL OBTAIN ETERNAL SALVAFION, EVEN IF THEY DO NOT REFORM THEIR LIVES, AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN GOOD CONSCIENCE DUE TO INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE “.
As you can see this catholic teologian is talking about people who know the norm, because everybody knows that according to the teachings of the Church some actions are gravely sinful.
Are you sure St Thomas Aquinas is not your God?
Excuse me, i just saw i mispelled some words. As i said i’m italian and i live in Italy so i ask you to be patient. 🙂
He is definitely NOT my God. My only is the Holy Trinity.
But i have faith in the Holy Trinity because the Church taught me about the life of Jesus thanks to the Sacred Scripture written by the Church, because the Gospel and the epistles were written by the members of the primitive Church.
And the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to the same Church that wrote those Scriptures, and we know the right interpretation of the Sacred Scripture trough the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, the same Magisterium that adopted the thomistic doctrine.
My only God is the Holy Trinity, sorry for the forgetfulness.
John,
I think the concern of vincible or invincible is not what fires most of us up here. We’re not concerned with judging each and every case to allow for communion. It is the norm which we want to protect. It would be a scandal to allow a philandering Protestant pro-abortion President to receive the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord, yet it happened from the hand of a knowing priest. To encourage priests to let every Tom, Dick and Harriet who are publically known to be in illicit unions to receive the Eucharist, and effectively assume they’re invincibly ignorant, (or it’s just too hard), while looking for an opportunity to correct them some day when they wouldn’t be offended, is just wrong. (Yeah, the right word(s) fail me.) It’s not the state of anyone’s soul that’s my concern, but making a disdainful change denigrating the doctrine on the Eucharist, disrespecting those who hold to their marriage vows, just to placate those few who already broke the rules and want new ones made so they can feel good.
Well, Mike, i understand your concerns, believe me. It’s the same concern and disappointment that afflicted the workers in the vineyard.
I think we should all reread that parable https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-16
St.Bernard is not Magisterium. The teachings i posted here are those of the Magisterium.
John, it’s late where I am, and I haven’t had time to review the latest comments while working on this, so it may be a repetition of some.
I offer this labor of brotherly love, for your prayerful consideration. You may not respect those less well read than you, but there is such a thing as a Catholic sense of truth, which I pray is directed by the Holy Spirit for all our sakes, here.
Perhaps JPII believed as you do basically, but because of the likelihood of scandal to believers, refused to make any concessions regarding the sin of adultery and reception of Holy Communion, when he repeated the ages old teaching forbidding adulterers to receive unless they first renounced the sexual acts and lived as brother and sister, (and that, only when it was deemed the lessor of two evils for them to remain in the same house together for the sake of the children they had broght into this world together).
After researching what you wrote previously, it appears you to me that you, (like Aquinas) [in my own words]believe that personal conscience is each person’s God-given inner voice with a connection so closely linked to God, that even if the person decides to act in what we all know to be grave error, should ultimately be followed- no matter what anyone else says to the contrary–including the Church. I believe Aquinas might have agreed with you entirely, UNTIL the day the Church ruled dogmatically on the Eucharist and defined the moral teachings which must always apply to its reception, due to Who, it is. As a faithful son of the Church, I don’t believe he would ever dissent from that, as it appears JPII also did not.
As I wrote in an earlier comment, just prior to his death Aquinas was given a vision at Mass; after which he called his life’s work of writings “straw”, and refused to finish the Summa. No one knows to this day, what in particular he felt deserved such a harsh judgment, so I heartily propose you place this particular idea on top of the pile of straw, and put a match to it, –or at least to the way it has been used and applied today. 🙂
In the last analysis, it appears you (and Francis &Co.) believe the more intellectually proud and stubborn a person allows himself to become in WILLFULLY REJECTING knowable dogmatic Truths-in particular regarding the GRAVITY of the sin of adultery, the MORE the Church, and his confessor, is bound NOT to judge his sin as mortal. This in turn is due to your belief that the Church is bound to hold up what an individual believes his conscience leads him to do–even when the Church knows it to be completely false and erroneous by Christ’s own Word –as MORE SACROSANCT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN EXISTENCE- including God’s Laws as dogmatically defined by the Church, and the power Christ gave His Church, to bind and loose.
Thus it appears you have slipped into worshipping human knowlege, and subjugated what is Divine, to how human minds describe an unseen part of creation–, making a certain concept of personal conscience, into a false god. You then place this god on a pedestal you claim is so near and directly connected to the true God, that false/evil as it may be, it is incapable of leading that soul to Hell–or so you HOPE. This all, in my view, goes directly against the First Commandment and makes presumption a mandate of natural law. Worst of all, it risks the loss of souls eternally, in an attempt to mitigate mortal sin.
When I first realized saw that conscience was being defined as this inner voice, my first thought was how difficult it is to distinguish between the voice of God, our own concupiscence, and the urgings of devils. This is why inner locutions used to be always judged by the Church for conformity with truth, rather than automatically considered as coming from God, just because a pious person had experienced them. (Father Gobi, was a good example) This apparently very holy man received many of them, including the one that proved them false — that in the year 2,000 the sun was going to touch down onto the earth and Jesus would step out of “the golden door” onto the earth which would be turned into a new paradise.) Obviously false, yet I still see people following the Marian Movement of Priests he started, which claimed he got the date wrong, if memory serves.
The point: Inner voices are not infallible and must always be submitted in obedience to the moral teachings of the Church, not given a status abover all else.
The way all of this has been so accepted by intellectuals, reminds me of the story of the emperor’s new clothes, and of the definitions of diabolical disorientation. I say this with all charity. I am judging it by what by Catholic sense tells me, and this is a fresh view for you to consider, and by what I’ve seen it lead to when people give the benefit of the doubt to the worst possible things. If I am wrong, the apparently lost soul may still end up in heaven. If you are wrong, it goes to hell forever, for precisely the reasons the Church and Scripture have always taught it would–up until Vatican II.. This angers people who really care about others, and make you who claim to be more merciful, appear to be cold and callous as Satan.
Many people devoted to Our Lady pray daily for souls, because of mortal sin. In 1917 she showed three shepherd children -the oldest 10 or 11- a vision of Hell, filled with agonized souls, who died still in that state. It terrified them. Sister Lucia later wrote in her memoirs, that if they hadn’t been promised to be taken to Heaven later on, she would have died from fright that day. They spent the rest of their days, sacrificing for Grace for sinners. Our lady had obviously come to remind the world of the terrible consequesces of remaining in mortal sin, and of the fact that the justice of God, in not negated by his Mercy. If it were, free will would be rendered meaningless. Jesus opened heaven for all who would accept salvation. Salvation involves a surrender of of the will to God’s commandments. I’m pretty sure right now, that this very topic and teaching, is as the heart of the worst attack ever on the Church, and that the fear of Hell is a partial remedy for it, which is why Our Lady was sent to highlight it, at a time when the Church was about to fall into a silence on this that was deadly. Later, Sister Lucia confirmed that contrary to popular theories that most are saved, “many souls go to Hell”..
Since you believe in the private revelations to Sister Faustina, surely you must give even greater heed to those of Our Lady, confirmed by the Church investigation after one of the greatest miracles since the Ressurection ( on October 13, 1917) and the thousands of testimonies that followed it.
I believe we are experiencing now, what Scripture warned us was coming:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
2 Peter 2:1…there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Matthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many .
Matt 24:24 false Christs, and false prophets,.. shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
2 Pet 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
I know that’s what I’m trying to do. I believe it’s what you’re trying to do as well, but judging from some of your links I don’t trust your choice of sources, and believe, obviously you have been misled.
God bless us all.
“Think about that when you hail such error”
YOU scismatics and heretics should think about what you are doing, not me (altough i think that you are in good faith And love the Church, but you are making a grave mistake).
The condemnation of the Divine Mercy devotion WAS originally done because it was presented to the proper authorities through a faulty Italian translation, not the Polish translation.
The devotion was very popular in Poland during and especially right after WWII.
(Saint Faustina prophesied that Warsaw was going to be punished for its sins. Within a short time after her death(1938), Germany leveled the city of Warsaw while the Russians stood by and let it happen. One in six Poles died in Warsaw. – Warsaw allowed abortion and it is said that people would travel from other European countries to ‘vacation there’ to get their abortions done.-)
The Poles were much suprised at the supression of the devotion to the Divine Mercy. This decision led Karol Wojtyla to lead the effort to collect the authentic writings and do the prescribed investigations in order to present to the proper authorities the primary sources in order for them to be able to make an authentic judgement. About a year before he was elected Pope, the condemnation of the devotion was reversed. Later in his pontificate, he not only canonized the visionary, but fulfilled Jesus’ request for the feast of His Divine Mercy to be celebrated on the Sunday after Easter… making it a liturgical feast for the entire Church.
Do you know what does it mean “Roma locuta causa finita est”? Even Padre Pio was prosecuted by the Church, and in the end he was canonized.
“In the diary are so many instances of false mercy, mercy supposedly given to people who don’t even have contrition in their heart, nor any intentions to amend one’s life. (Sounds like the garble that Francis the Modernist spews with his “Year of Mercy”.)
“Mercy for you! Mercy for YOU! And you and you and you! Everyone gets some mercy!”
Mercy comes with CONTRITION and amendment away from a sinful life.”
The Lord is free to give His mercy in the measure He wants, and we cannot contest him. I know that you pharisees hate this, but He wanted the divine Mercy devotion as a last chance for hardened sinners. He promised that everyone who will pray the chaplet will receive His Mercy and the Lord will save him giving him the Grace for an act of perfect contrition (even at the verge of death).
He promised that every soul that will pray the Chaplet will not be lost and i believe in His promises. Santa Faustina has been canonized (And canonizations are infallibile) and two Popes (Francis And GPII) endorsed the Divine Mercy devotion; that’s enough for me.
I’m not a tradi-protestant who goes against the Catholic Church.
p.s. I took those bible quotes from a page on line because I was in a hurry, but . I normally use the Douay Rheims Bible, so if any of their words disagree with that, please take the translation from the DR. Thanks.
God Bless.
Nah, I couldn’t care less, or be envious of, how long and deep someone spends in debauchery and how short and minimal their “conversion”, I’d rejoice with the angels in heaven over any soul which is saved. I worry over why the five foolish virgins, who went to town and got more oil, still got locked out. What’s the point of the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, or where does “rightly” apply to the formation of conscience?
Thank you for your very clear and helpful reflection, reminiscent of a previous contributor under the name of ‘ Indignus famuluus ‘
God bless your patience, Help Us Lord, in the face of the modernist philosophy of confusion and unknowability of fundamental moral truths, given to our knowledge through reason and Revelation.
Sorry but this “theologian” promotes universal salvation for all which completely goes against Our Lord’s words in the Gospel.
And per my request waaaay above, please provide the link to the precise place in the writings of St. Thomas that speak of this so called “invincible erroneous judgement”. Not ignorance. But the concept of having full knowledge, with God’s grace the ability to choose the good, and yet still somehow how choosing evil and still being in a state of grace? The only way this can happen (as I noted above) is:
A) mental retardation/brain damage
B) no conscience/sociopath
C) being under an iniquitous curse by God who darkens the intellect due to prolonged willful unrepentent grave sin.
The whole concept of salvation outside the Church has extremely narrow and rare conditions…the most obvious being invincible ignorance…but you aren’t saying that…you are saying even though they are told truth, their intellects and consciences are so broken and fried that they can no longer recognize it any longer. What you fail to note is that A) the reason for that could be because God has placed them under an iniquity and B) that God knows exactly what is going on, could provide the grace needed to see the truth but chooses NOT to for that person.
God created our intellects and conscience to recognize truth. We are wired for it. Saying that this is somehow broken and can’t be repaired denies the reality of God’s power, grace and ability to heal. If someone with a brain is told the truth, chooses with his free will to reject it, he will be held responsible for that decision. Stop introducing some mythical force that somehow blocks truth and thus culpability. God knows everything and can do everything. If someone is blocked from knowing the truth it’s because they are under an iniquity due to their own sins.
God bless~
Yes, God bless the patience of all of the good hearted trads who have loved the modernist poster here enough to try and educate him of his errors. May your deeds bring your eternal merit:+)
So let’s bring this modernist insanity to rest and redeem the honor of our beloved St. Thomas Aquinas who would be the first to throw Pope Francis on the stake:
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/77982a376d9f1b199810842b1f158b8e-203.html
Take away quote from St. Thomas himself:
(the question is posed by the author of the book and he uses St. Thomas to answer)
“What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?”
To this question we give the following answer:
“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
And the final nail in coffin by our beloved St. Thomas and St. Augustine:
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: “There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and ‘to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin,” as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) “And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins”, says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost.” (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27)
And that just deals with invincible ignorance…they don’t go near any kind of idea of “invincibly erroneous judgement” where the person knows the truth, rejects it and is still somehow magically saved. That’s insanity.
I’m still waiting for the direct link to the writings of St. Thomas that explain the notion of “invincibly erroneous judgement” and that someone is still saved even though they have been told the truth and have the will to accept it.
God bless~
“I’m still waiting for the direct link to the writings of St. Thomas that explain the notion of “invincibly erroneous judgement” and that someone is still saved even though they have been told the truth and have the will to accept it.”
I’ve already posted what Aquinas said but never mind, i’ll post again
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. HE INSISTS THAT EVEN THE DICTATE OF AN ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE MUST BE FOLLOWED AND THAT TO ACT AGAINST SUCH A DICTATE IS IMMORAL.
I quote from this http://www.aquinasonline.com/Q…
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, ONE ALSO ID BOUND TO DO THE WRONG THING IF ONE’S CONSCIENCE TELL ONE THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.
And if one has sinned in letting is own conscience fall into error they can repent for that by they must follow their conscience even if IT goes against the teachings of the Church.
In fact, that’s what you people are doing: you don’t recognize the authority of the VATICAN II and of the post conciliar Church, and this is, have no doubt, a GREAT SIN, but i think that most of you are in good faith and really love the Church.
Many traditionalists are a wonderful example of invincible ignorance. The keep on going against the Church even though the Lord said ” …Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16.
But if you are so sincerely convinced in conscience that you must do what you are doing, you are not guilty of mortal sin.
“Sorry but this “theologian” promotes universal salvation for all which completely goes against Our Lord’s words in the Gospel.”
Nope, he is not promoting universal salvation, he is saying that going against some teachings of the Church can, sometime, be done according to one’s conscience and that if someone acts according to his own conscience (that is erroneous even if he cared to acquire knowledge) he will not be damned for this.
This is the Teaching of St Aquinas and the Catechism
ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”6
AS YOU CAN SEE BOTH THE MAGISTERIUM AND AQUINAS RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMEONE HAVING AN UNCULPABLY ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE, WITHOUT RESORTING TO MENTAL ILLNESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO JUSTIFICATE THAT ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT.
SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT WHAT I EXPLAINED HERE AND WHAT THAT THEOLOGIAN TRIED TO EXPLAINED IS THE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM.
“The excuses given for people committing adultery are all mired in emotionalism. True happiness is based on living a life of virtue, goodness, purity, holiness, self sacrifice etc. What is described in the examples is self centered emotionalism and pleasure. It is disturbing to think why people could not rationally understand why they would go to hell because they are committing adultery: they are breaking the vows they made before God and others, they are destroying a family, they are lying to themselves and each other, causing scandal and cooperating with the breakdown of society etc. Marriage and life are not about shallow emotionalism, they are about knowing, loving and serving God here so you can be happy with Him in the next life”.
Sometimes people part ways on mutual agreement because their marriage became worse than a life sentence, for both (husband and wife) and they cannot, once they find a person who truly loves them, believe that God want them to suffer and that God hates their happiness and he will throw them in hell for that.
And sometimes there can be the case when someone has been abandoned by his/her wife/husband and he suffers too much and he/she doesn’t want to stay alone for the rest of his/her life.
All these situations carry a lot of weight for the Confessor and for one’s responsibility and for the pastoral decision the Church can make for these people.
If you speak about someone who deliberately betrayed his/her wife/husband and ruined his/her family we have a total different scenario, and in this case i’m pretty sure he will never be allowed to Communion unless he/she reforms his/her life.
But in the other cases the responsibility can be diminished and people can live in a state of Grace.
You people cold hearted and rigid is not the judgment of God.
If Aquinas isn’t enough Let’s read the CCC
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61”
As you can see the Church recognize the concrete possibility of invincible ignorance, and that even intelligent people can formulate unculpably erroneous judgment in conscience.
Otherwise she would never said that “One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience” because a mentally retarded person can’t do that.
But if someone works on that and he/she still remains in their ERRONEOUS JUDGUMENT he/she is not guilty of mortal sin.
” This in turn is due to your belief that the Church is bound to hold up what an individual believes his conscience leads him to do–even when the Church knows it to be completely false and erroneous by Christ’s own Word –as MORE SACROSANCT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN EXISTENCE- including God’s Laws as dogmatically defined by the Church, and the power Christ gave His Church, to bind and loose”.
IT is not “my belief”. It is the Church’s doctrine defined in the CCC.
” ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”60″
If you reject it than YOU are the one who is going against the dogmatically defined teachings of the Church. But again, if you sincerely believe that this is the right thing to di go ahead, i just suggest you to carefully examinate yourself.
” Thus it appears you have slipped into worshipping human knowlege, and subjugated what is Divine, to how human minds describe an unseen part of creation–, making a certain concept of personal conscience, into a false god. You then place this god on a pedestal you claim is so near and directly connected to the true God, that false/evil as it may be, it is incapable of leading that soul to Hell–or so you HOPE. ”
Again, the fact that one’s conscience is connected to the true God is not my belief, it’s the belief of the Church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
“1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.”
” What’s the point of the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, or where does “rightly” apply to the formation of conscience?”
The dogma of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has not been contradicted, because every man of good will who follows what God dictates him in his heart, is somehow connected with the invisible Church.
There is the visible Church and the invisible Church. I’ve seen with my eyes in an hospital a muslim saying, on the verge of death “Jesus i love you” while he was looking at the wall behind me (i didn’t see anything but i’m pretty sure that man was visited by our Lord).
That man died as a member of the Catholic Church, though he wasn’t visibly connected to her.
I firmly believe that the Lord gives to every man the chance of accepting him, even on the verge of death and even if someone dies suddenly and we think that the man is definitely dead.
You know, the soul doesn’t immediately depart from the body, so there is always time for the final option.
This includes even catholics of course, because even a catholic can due suddenly in a state of sin. Without this final option so many people would be lost.
I think that this may already have been mentioned, but this ‘John Coltrane’ is likely the same person (who is a progressive IMO) who tried to takeover the comments section at the Vox Cantoris blog. He goes by the username “Mark Thomas’ there. He’s a troll who seeks attention. Best to ignore him, but its difficult to do, since he’s so obviously and obstinately wrong.
St Bernard is a Doctor of the Church, as is St Thomas Aquinas.
Most cases of persons who are divorced and remarried or involved in other sexual sins would come under CCC 1791 and 1792. Those who come under 1791 are judged “culpable” within the same paragraph. The ignorance of those in 1792 is not “invincible”, otherwise paragraph 1793 would not commence “If – on the contrary – ignorance is invincible…”
We are listening to the Magisterium of 2000 years and and not to those who are contradicting what has been handed down to us throughout the ages, as God is Truth and Faithful Love and cannot contradict himself. “By their fruits you shall know them”- Please name three good fruits of Vatican II. In charity.
Most cases of persons who are divorced and remarried or involved in other sexual sins would come under CCC 1791 and 1792. Those who come under 1791 are judged “culpable” within the same paragraph. The ignorance of those in 1792 is not “invincible”, otherwise paragraph 1793 would not commence “If – on the contrary – ignorance is invincible…”
It seems to me that you are desperate to find a loophole for people to remain in their sins claiming invincible ignorance/erroneous conscience, whereas any true Catholic would give up anything to please God.
” Most cases of persons who are divorced and remarried or involved in other sexual sins would come under CCC 1791 and 1792. ”
I do you know that? We live in a completely different world compared to the ancient times, and people today don’t have the same views on these matters anymore. The Catechism speakes about clearly of these mitigating factors.
You know, being a Confessor is not easy, it takes an awful lot of study and experience. If it was that easy like you people seem to think, everybody could be a Confessor, because telling people about the law would be more than enough.
But the reality is quite different.
If we speak about divorced and remaireed, a lot of people come under 1793, but again, the duty of discernment on these matters belongs to Confessors, not to us.
I’m not a troll and i don’t even know “vox cantoris”.
If you poeple like to think i’m a troll just because you can’t contradict (and it’s not surprising, since i rely on Aquinas and the CCC while you reject the authority of the Church) my arguments, well, go ahead.
“We are listening to the Magisterium of 2000 years and and not to those who are contradicting what has been handed down to us throughout the ages”
Nope. You have independently decided that the Church should not be listened anymore and you denigrate an ecumenical Council as if it was haeretic.
This is called schism, sister. But again, even though i’m sure that you people are horribly wrong, if you are sincerely convinced that you are doing the right thing than you MUST carry on, because otherwise you would be guilty of mortal sin.
I just suggest you to carefully examinate yourselves.
The troll John Coltrane does the same thing as the troll Mark Thomas (on the Vox Cantoris blog): refuses to acknowledge what the actual Catholics here are telling him regarding Church teaching.
Please name three good fruits of Vatican II.
People guilty of sexual sins can be in invincible ignorance just like the other sinners, if their conscience is unculpably erroneous.
I already gave you an example: even a makeout session can be a mortal sin http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html but today nobody can think he/she is deserving eternal torment for a
make out session, so even though they materially commit sin, they are not guilty of mortal sin.
And the same thing happens for the others sins. If they are culpably ignorant they should repent the fact that they let their consciences fall in the darkness, but nontheless, if they can’t change their mind in their current state they HAVE to follow what their consciences tell them. If they are unculpably ignorant (maybe because they cared to inform themselves but nontheless they can’t have full awareness because their conscience is erroneous and makes impossible for them to realize the sinfulness of those behaviours) they are not guilty at all and they have nothing to repent.
You traditionalists are guilty of the sin of schism, and being guilty of that you are committing a sin much, MUCH, graver than any sexual sins, but it seems pretty obvious to me that most of you are in good faith and love the Church, so even though you are materially committing one of the gravest sins, you are not guilty of mortal sin.
But i think you should examinate yourselves very carefully on this matter.
OK, if you can’t name three good fruits of Vatican II, could you please name two?
“By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16)
The CCC contains heresy. Vatican II contains heresy. John Paul II’s Encyclicals contain heresy. Aquinas was a Catholic.
Please look up the definition of schism, and you will see that traditional Catholics are not guilty of this sin. In the meantime I’m looking forward to receiving your list of good fruits of Vatican II. Many thanks.
“True catholics” a bunch of scismatic that doesn’t recognize the Church anymore and thinks She falled into heresy even though Jesus said ” And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19-19) and “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)?????
What if i told you LOL? 😀 😀 😀
You tradiprotestans are very funny, but i suggest you to read how the Saints were always faithful to the Pope.
Saints were faithful to Popes who were faithful to God. Francis is not faithful to God.
“Please look up the definition of schism, and you will see that traditional Catholics are not guilty of this sin.”
Are you sure, so sure, really sure? https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1056
” In the meantime I’m looking forward to receiving your list of good fruits of Vatican II. Many thanks.”
It depends on what you mean with “good fruits”. I think that the Council was necessary, and i also think that without it the situation today would be a lot worse http://diocesemontreal.org/tl_files/actualite/Dossiers/Vatican2/Second_Vatican_Council.pdf
Even the pharisees accused Jesus of being a liar and even a satanist. But they were wrong.
You are mistakenly equating Catholicism with conservatism, so you think that a more liberal Pope is a traitor. But this is ideology, not faith.
“The CCC contains heresy. Vatican II contains heresy. John Paul II’s Encyclicals contain heresy. Aquinas was a Catholic.”
LOL. 🙂
And you call yourself a Catholic? You say the CCC contains heresies and the post Conciliar Popes are heretic and you call yourself a catholic. LOL. 🙂
Anyway, about the role of conscience the CCC is 100% thomistic as you can see (IT says the exact same things said by Aquinas), and believe me…… Aquinas would never join scismatic groups.
You should read about the faithfulness of Padre Pio To the Church, even when he was unjustly prosecuted.
But again, if you really think you are doing the right thing, then you must carry on.
Aquinas was very clear on this matter http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. HE INSISTS THAT EVEN THE DICTATE OF AN ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE MUST BE FOLLOWED AND THAT TO ACT AGAINST SUCH A DICTATE IS IMMORAL.”
So i’m not going to judge you.
We can see in the comments by John Coltrane that NuChurch has its own council, and its own dogmas (the belief that if a Catholic refuses to believe and therefore comply with Church teaching, then he or she is not guilty of mortal and can therefore do anything that he or she wants to, as long as their conscience tells them that it’s okay). This is one of the main dogmas of NuChurch. For them, 2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4; it may equal whatever they want it to equal, as long as the NuChurch Pope approves it.
NuChurch also has its own liturgy. We see that in the Novus Ordo. NuChurch (aka the conciliar church) is a schismatic church. This doesn’t mean that the conciliar church only contains error. The NuChurch/conciliar church feeds off the True Church, like a parasite feeds of its host. There is a sort of transfer of substance from the True Church to NuChurch, at times. Therefore it cannot be said that NuChurch/conciliar church has not any faith left in it. The Pope is the Pope of both NuChurch/conciliar church and the True Church, even though NuChurch/conciliar church is schismatic.
Rome is currently occupied by a sect (modernist sect). When our Lord deems that the time is right, he’ll release His church from the cold and cruel grasp of the modernists. We need to pray and offer penance for this end, as well as proclaim the timeless truths of the Catholic faith in the meantime.
There are certain conditions that a Pope must meet in order to use “The Keys” of infallibility. Those conditions are a matter of dogma and are outlined in the Canons of Vatican Council I. The last Pope to use The Keys, was Pius XII in 1950, when he defined the dogma of the Assumption.
Every Pope is bound to accept what has been handed down to him by previous Popes. When the Popes deviate from this rule, as has been the case since 1965, then you have the rebellion that the Apostle Paul warned of in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians. St Paul says that when this happens, you must stand fast and hold to tradition.
“We can see in the comments by John Coltrane that NuChurch has its own council, and its own dogmas (the belief that if a Catholic refuses to believe and therefore comply with Church teaching, then he or she is not guilty of mortal and can therefore do anything that he or she wants to, as long as their conscience tells them that it’s okay). This is one of the main dogmas of NuChurch. ”
Why, why, why are you spouting lies? That’s not BY ANY MEANS a “new doctrine”, that’s a very old teaching of the Church, dating back to 800 years ago.
Again, i’m going to quote Aquinas
Here http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/conscience.htm
“Thomas Aquinas, in his book of Sentences (IV, 38, 2, 4), established the authority and inviolability of conscience in words similar to Father Ratzinger’s: “Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authorities, in ignorance of the true facts, impose a demand that offends against his clear conscience should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience.” For any Catholic in search of truth, no stronger statement on the authority and inviolability of personal conscience could be found, but Aquinas goes further. HE INSISTS THAT EVEN THE DICTATE OF AN ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE MUST BE FOLLOWED AND THAT TO ACT AGAINST SUCH A DICTATE IS IMMORAL”.
And here http://www.aquinasonline.com/Q…
“The reason that this is important is that one cannot do the right thing if one does not know what the right thing is. So, if someone has problems with their conscience, it does not seem appropriate to blame them. Children do not have fully formed consciences, and do not always understand what is the right thing to do. If a child does wrong because he or she didn’t know any better, or because he or she thought it was the right thing to do, we do not (or should not) blame and punish him or her. Aquinas therefore believes that not only is one excused from wrongdoing if one’s conscience is in error, ONE ALSO ID BOUND TO DO THE WRONG THING IF ONE’S CONSCIENCE TELL ONE THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. He also believes that one has a duty to have a well-formed conscience, one that knows what the right thing to do is. Even though an erring conscious excuses one from doing wrong, one may have done wrong in letting one’s conscience fall into error”.
So what? Even Aquinas was a modernist? You say “For them, 2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4” But, guess what, when we speak about morals we are definitely NOT speaking about quantum physics.
Vatican II contains dogmatic costitutions.
One does know the right thing to do if they have been informed of the right thing to do by the Church. It’s quite simple.
John, you keep repeating yourself, it’s very boring. But you haven’t yet answered my request for a list of good fruits of the 2nd Vatican Council.
Surely, this cant’be difficult for you since you are so convinced of its Catholicity.
I thought Vatican II was not about defining any new dogma. Can you explain? What “dogmatic constitution” did you like best?
Ursula,
I too would like John to answer your question regarding a list of good fruits of the council. Perhaps he can quote St. Thomas as ‘proof’ of the good fruits.
Enjoy.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-on-the-sspx-and-his-controversial-writings
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and YOU ARE CERTAINLY OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THEM IF YOU ARE CATHOLIC .
http://www.pettitslawnscapes.com/frben/documents/The_Four_Constitutions_of_VCII.pdf
“John, you keep repeating yourself, it’s very boring. But you haven’t yet answered my request for a list of good fruits of the 2nd Vatican Council.
Surely, this cant’be difficult for you since you are so convinced of its Catholicity”
I think the Council allowed the survival of the Church in modern times, so i think it brought good fruits http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1783/the_true_spirit_of_vatican_ii.aspx
Saints never went against the 2nd Vatican Council, i suggest you to read this letter of Padre Pio
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Ron_Obrien.htm
“The suggestion of O’Brien’s apostolate, and other schismatic groups, that Blessed Pio was a dissenter over Vatican II and the Mass is sufficiently refuted by the below letter. The arrogance of their materials can be contrasted with its humility, written to Pope Paul VI a month before Padre Pio died (September 23, 1968). Thanking the Pope for Humanae Vitae and offering his own filial obedience, Blessed Pio makes explicit positive reference to the reforms of Vatican II, showing himself to be the the soul of charity and respect towards apostolic authority in the Church.
“I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.
I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of
the people of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy
Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defence of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical “Humanae
Vitae”; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.
May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.
Prostrate at your feet, I beg you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also to bless all our good endeavours which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.
Humbly yours,
P. Pio, Capuchin”
But hey, he was a catholic, not a scismatic tradi-protestant.
@Caimbeul
“One does know the right thing to do if they have been informed of the right thing to do by the Church. It’s quite simple.”
No, it’s definitely NOT that simple, but of course you have never studied moral theology. Anyway, my quotes from Aquinas and the CCC should allow you to see very clear that the question of morality and mortal sins is much more complex.
And you should thank for that, otherwise you scismatics would be in a serious danger, because it’s a mortal sin going against the teachings of the Church.
But, as i said before, i think that even though you are obviously and horribly wrong, you are in good faith and love the Church, so i hope that you are not accountable of mortal sin.
You are definetely guilty of objective sin, anyway, but as long as you follow the sincere dictate of your conscience, you are not formally sinning https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/formal-or-actual-sin-versus-material-or-objective-sin/
Have a look at this:
https://akacatholic.com/vatican-ii-asking-all-the-wrong-questions/
When i said ” You are definetely guilty of objective sin, anyway, but as long as you follow the sincere dictate of your conscience, you are not formally sinning” i was meaning to say that what you are doing (accusing the Church of heresy and the Vatican II of apostasy) is definitely GRAVE matter (i.e objective sin) but as long as you are in good faith and sincerely think you are doing the right thing, you are not accountable of mortal sin (i.e formal sin).
That’s because you lack one of the conditions needed to commit a mortal sin, id est full awareness.
If your conscience tells you that going against the Church post Conciliar Church is the right thing to do then i suppose you are inculpably ignorant on this matter (because you don’t have the full awareness of the mind) and you must follow your conscience.
The moral theology of the Church teaches us that if you go against the dictate of your conscience you are guilty of mortal sin, so (paradoxically) if you traditionalists are really convinced that the Church has fallen into apostasy and nothing can change your mind the only way you have to not commit mortal sin is keeping on denuncing the supposed (by you) heresies of the Church, because if you pretended otherwise you would be guilty of mortal sin (even though, objectively, you would be doing the right thing).
It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” [Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 33, Art 4]. St Thomas Aquinas
This is not the case, because the Pope can change the ecclesiastical laws concerning divorced and remaireed (and all the Bishops and Cardinals are faithful to him, even the conservatives Bishops and Cardinals) without falling into heresy (i think he will issue a Motu proprio very soon), but again, if nothing can change you mind and you sincerely believe that the Church has fallen into heresy, you should keep on doing what you are doing.
Paradoxically, as i explained to Caimbeul, if you firmly believe that Francis is heretic and the post conciliar Church is a counterfeited Church, if you pretended otherwise and started following the Pope and accepting the second Vatican Council even though your conscience tells you to do the opposite, you would be guilty of mortal sin.
And here is the paradox: you would be guilty of mortal sin in spite of the fact that you would be doing the objective right thing to do. Do your understand now the capitale importance of conscience?
“Vatican II contains dogmatic costitutions.”
There you have it, the big lie.
The big lie? STRA LOL 😛
How can it be a lie?
My dear Ursula
I think that the core issue of that topic is this question
“Vatican Council II truly merit, based on its nature and intent, to be designated an “Ecumenical Council” of the Catholic Church?”
And the Church has already given her answer
“Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and YOU ARE CERTAINLY OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THEM IF YOU ARE CATHOLIC”
http://www.pettitslawnscapes.com/frben/documents/The_Four_Constitutions_of_VCII.pdf
Period. Roma locuta causa finita est.
“you would be guilty of mortal sin in spite of the fact that you would be doing the objective right thing to do” -This is pure bull crap.
Three things are necessary for mortal sin.
1) It has to be a serious sin.
2) You have to know it is a serious sin.
3) Knowing this, you still want to do it.
I think we have a beautiful example of what i’m teaching you in this article https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/formal-or-actual-sin-versus-material-or-objective-sin/
“An objective sin that is not also an actual sin still includes some type of knowledge. A person who lies knows that he is asserting a falsehood, and so every lie is an objective sin. But if the person mistakenly thinks that lying is sometimes moral, his objective sin of lying might not be an actual sin. For he lacks knowledge of the immorality of the act. In other words, he knows what he is doing, but he does not know that what he is doing is immoral. Every act is a knowing choice”.
In this example we have someone that commits an objective sin without being guilty of mortal sin.
And here
“An act can be an actual sin, without also being an objective sin, as when the person mistakenly thinks that an act is immoral, and commits the act as a knowing choice. However, in such a case, the act is still, in another sense, an objective sin, since it is always objectively immoral to knowingly choose to commit an act that is against one’s conscience. For example, if a person asserts a truth, mistakenly thinking it is a falsehood, he commits the sin of lying. It is objectively wrong to assert as if it were true, what one believes to be false.”
We have someone that is guilty of mortal sin even though that action is not, strictly speaking, an objective sin.
Not quite.
You can be guilty of mortal sin even though the act is not in itself an objective sin.
If, for example, you think that having foreplay before having sex with your wife is an immoral thing, than you are obliged to abstain even though it’s not an objective sin, because if you don’t abstain you are guilty of mortal sin.
If, on the contrary, you think that something is not gravely immoral, if you do that you are not guilty of mortal sin because you lack full awareness of the mind, even though you know the norm.
Please, you are oversimplifying a complex issue that can’t be oversimplified.
I quote from here https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/objective-mortal-sin-and-the-state-of-grace/
“An objective mortal sin is a knowingly chosen act of the human person, an act which is objectively gravely immoral. An actual mortal sin is an objective mortal sin which is committed with full knowledge of its grave immorality and full deliberation (full freedom of choice).
Suppose that an act is objectively only a venial sin, or objectively not a sin at all. If a person mistakenly thinks that the act is gravely immoral, and commits that act with full knowledge and full deliberation, the act is an actual mortal sin. For it is always gravely immoral to freely and knowingly choose to do what you yourself think to be gravely immoral.
In this fallen sinful world, many persons commit objective mortal sins without full knowledge of the gravely immoral of the act. Their choice is an objective mortal sin, but not an actual mortal sin.
Only actual mortal sin deprives the soul of the state of grace. Only unrepented actual mortal sin deserves eternal punishment in Hell.
Therefore, persons who are unrepentant from objective mortal sins, which are not also actual mortal sins, can be saved even if, unfortunately, they do not realize their error and give up those sins prior to death. As long as the individual entered the state of grace by some form of baptism, and either never committed an actual mortal sin or at least repented from all actual mortal sins, that person will die in the state of grace and have eternal life.
This implies that atheists can be saved without converting to belief in God. Their refusal to believe in God might not be an actual mortal sin, and therefore they might be saved. They can enter the state of grace by an implicit baptism of desire and return to the state of grace after any actual mortal sin by an act of implicit perfect contrition. Some atheists may be guilty to the extent of actual mortal sin for their rejection of God and religion; other atheists might be in a state of invincible ignorance.
The same can be said about other sins. Homosexuals who are sexually active or in a legal same-sex marriage can possibly be saved without giving up this sinful behavior — if they are invincibly ignorant of the gravely immoral of their actions and not guilty (or at least repentant) from other types of grave sin. The state of grace can be possessed by persons who unfortunately do not realize that their actions are gravely immoral. This includes various sexual sins, the divorced and remarried, cohabitating couples, and other sins. Some persons might be guilty to the extent of actual mortal sin for their sexual sins; others might be in a state of invincible ignorance.
However, there are limits to invincible ignorance. Some grave sins are so severe that they cannot be mistaken by a sincere conscience for morally permissible acts. In all cases, God is the judge over each person and their conscience.
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible”
As you can see, even people who knows the norm (because EVERY Roman catholic divorced and remaireed knows that second marriage is against what is taught by the Church, the same goes for cohabitating couples and so on) and live in a state of objective sin can be in a state of Grace as long as they don’t full realize the sinfulness of the act they are doing.
If someone doesn’t realize the sinfulness of an act even though he/she knows the norm, he/She can be culpably invincibly ignorant or unculpably invincible ignorant. In the first case he has to repent for the sin of letting his own conscience fall into error, but aside from that he has to keep following the dictate of his conscience nontheless (if he can’t change his mind than he definitely has an invincible erroneous conscience so he must repent for the sin of letting His own conscience fall ino darkness But he is not guilty of mortal sin if he continues his life without reforming it) in the second case he has no guilty at all.
I, for one, am not going to read anything by Ron Conte, who is anti-traditionalist. I can see why John would like him, though.
It’s a matter of course that you believe that traditionalists are horribly wrong. You are hardly the first person who claims to be a theologian and who also believes that he has the authority to teach and correct traditionalists. We know our Catholic faith. You know the conciliar faith. There’s a difference.
Too bad that his teachings are interely traditional.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
“It’s a matter of course that you believe that traditionalists are horribly wrong. You are hardly the first person who claims to be a theologian and who also believes that he has the authority to teach and correct traditionalists. We know our Catholic faith. You know the conciliar faith. There’s a difference”.
You believe you know the catholic faith but in most cases you believe a very personal interpretation of the Catholic faith.
This is proven by the facts that you reject the perrennial teaching of the Church about morals because you believe it’s modernism even though, for example, you can find the exact same teachings of Ron Conte in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (the heavenly patron of Confessors and Theologians).
Prove it. Prove that what Ron Conte is teaching about morals goes against the Tradition. Come on.
First you send us to the heretics at katapi.org, now to pettit’s landscaping? Well Pettit might be shortened Pettiti, Italian, and that’s close to Rome. 😉
Because you say so? This is what the Church has always taught, if you think that this is a “new doctrine” i guess you have to prove that.
I don’t think that any real proof will suffice for one who has a hard heart against what our Lord taught regarding the truth of marriage.
We’ve never denied the indissolubility of marriage: if someone is remaireed is an adulterer.
But the fact that he is and adulterer doesn’t mean that he is necessarly guilty of mortal sin.
John Coltrane = Big Waste of Time. The End.
John, you don’t believe in our Lord’s commandment regarding marriage. We traditionalists do believe in it.
Our Lord said:
“If you love me, keep my commandments.”
The fact that he is AN adulterer, not “and”.
Anyway, commiting an objective sin is different than committing a mortal sin that can lead someone to hell: this has always been the teaching of the Church.
And obviously this regards even the adulterers, so if i say that someone that lives in an objective state of sin (like adulterers, practicing homosexuals, people who make premarital sex and so on) can be in a state of grace even if he doesn’t reform his life, i’m perfectly ortodox with the traditional teaching.
Some persons might be guilty to the extent of actual mortal sin for their sexual sins; others might be in a state of invincible ignorance; this is something that must be discerned by the Confessor.
John Coltrane does like the Protestants do with the Bible when they take just one verse (like John 3:15) repeat it ad nauseam and ignore rest of Bible because it contradicts everything they want to believe. Well, “catholic” John Coltrane tries to play that same trick too. For over a two thousand year Church history the best he can do is come up with that one and only lonely quote (possibly even an error, Drs of Church aren’t infallible) of St. Thomas Aquinas repeating it ad nauseam, because the hundreds and hundreds of other quotes of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church along with past Popes encyclical’s and the Bible (many which have already been posted here but which John C. conveniently ignores while desperately repeating his one and only St Thomas quote ad nauseam just like the Protestants ignore Bible verses that prove them wrong while desperately repeating certain Bible verses ad nauseam) contradicts the easy, “wide”, and sinful road to heaven he wants to believe in. I know this strategy from dealing with other Protestants and it’s very frustrating, might as well be talking to a wall. What John and Protestants are refered to in the Bible and by the great mystics and saints of the Church would be termed OBSTINACY (John and VII lovers call this “Invincible Ignorance” a novelty of Pope Pius IX never heard of in the Church before that) because through sin, especially mortal, sometimes God hardens the heart and blinds it to absolute truth.
I totally agree with you. If you refuse to accept the teachings of the Church about morality and mortal sin than we are definitely wasting our times.
Anyway, considering that the Church officially teaches that a make out ssession is a mortal sin http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html do you think that every teenager in the world is doomed to hell?
You should say yes considering that you refuse the role of conscience.
I’ve even quoted the CCC http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm but you people think you know better than the Church, so good luck.
Being accused of being a protestant by a bunch of scismatics who doesn’t recognize the Church is extremely hilarious. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Just one of many examples of John Coltrane’s confusing faulty logic is his totally erroneous interpretation of Jesus saying “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” Well, why would Jesus be asking the Father for forgiveness of something (“they know not what they do”, so called “Invincible Ignorance” ) if it isn’t a sin to begin with. John makes no sense as usual. This verse would actually prove John Coltrane wrong, not right.
The CCC you quoted, was that the same CCC that says we worship the Devil, whoops, I mean God/Allah along with the Muslims?
Of course condemning Jesus was grave sin: Jesus said “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” precisely because, even if the sin they committed was above all immagination, most of them were not personally guilty of it, and that means they were not guilty of mortal sin.
But the fact that someone isn’t guilty of mortal sin doesn’t mean that the sin is not a sin: it’s a material sin but not a formal sin.
Even St Paul implied that.
1 Corinthians 2,6-8
” We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AFE UNDERSTOOD IT, FOR IF THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY ”
Romans 11, 25-32
“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”[g]
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. FOR GOD HAS BOUND EVERYONE OVER TO DISOBEDIENCE SO THAT HE MAY HAVE MERCY ON THEM ALL. “
Yes
The muslims are monotheists just like we and the Jews are.
Of course they are gravely mistaken because, just like the Jews, they don’t recognize Jesus as God the Son, but even though they are mistaken (and i think that Muhammed was deceived by Satan) they worship the One, true God.
And that means that you don’t understand anything a out moral theology.
All the things i wrote on this topic are a part of the depositum fidei. If you are ignorant and want to stay ignorant, well i guess it is not anyone’s fault.
They worship the Devil like yourself and that’s why neither of you recognize it. Its called OBSTINACY.
Even EWTN would strongly disagree with that ridiculous statement. https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FRFOR.TXT
So basically what it says was that Jesus was asking the Father to offer them the grace to ask for forgiveness and sadly as St Paul tells us in Romans 9-11 MOST of them rejected it. PLEASE stop making a mockery out of the Gospel or at least do some research before trying to advance your false erroneous ideas. Its bad enough the Protestants do that.
“no-fault salvation”
John C,
If only you would apply all the time and energy you’re expending here, to silencing the wolves who are causing more blogs like this one to spring up by month.
You’ve said you’re aware of the distrust Traditional Catholics have of our current hierarchy, but offer their writings to serve as our moral guides. Are you aware of the reasons for it–the many SCANDALS that underlie this still-growing distrust?
Take Cardinal Christoph Schonborn for example, who co-wrote and edited, with C.Ratzinger, the Catechim you’ve cited so often here.
“Schonborn insisted on separating the perverse sexuality from the positive “human values” found in such [homosexual relationships], going so far as to claim that oftentimes bishops and priests have cause to “bow down in reverence” before the “exemplary human behavior” of practicing sodomites.
the author notes: In other words, he sees fidelity as a good in itself, regardless of what someone is actually faithful to, such as, in this case, mortal sin, fleshly lusts so perverse that they cry to Heaven for vengeance, meriting from Almighty God merciless destruction by fire and brimstone (see Gen 19:24)
The full interview, currently only available in Italian, can be accessed here: •Cardinale Christoph Schonborn: “Ho conosciuto una coppia gay esemplare”
September 16, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, advocated the recognition and promotion of “stable homosexual relationships” because that would be better for the persons involved than the alternative, the well-known promiscuous gay lifestyle. Besides, in these “monogamous” arrangements, there is “sharing of life, joys, and sufferings, … one helps one another,” in short, the persons concerned “would make an important step for [their] own good and for the good of others”. Not fully a “marriage,” but still, a sort of.” [the article goes on to cite statistics that show REALITY to be THE OPPOSITE- promiscuity among gay couples is twice that of un-partnered, domestic violence is also more prevalent]
“Msgr. Schönborn’s naive idealization of gay relationships is at the same time highly irresponsible. With his authority as a prelate he in fact tries to seduce people troubled by same-sex desires to live them out in a way they may delude themselves into thinking is psychologically viable and morally defensible. But his way leads to their emotional and moral undoing, and often also to their medical ruin. Don’t take his medicine, it’s poison.”
VIENNA, April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – the resignation of Father Gerhard Swierzek, the pastor of a parish in the Archdiocese of Vienna, has been hailed by homosexualist activists in the Catholic Church as a victory. Fr. Swierzek had refused to allow an active homosexual, Florian Stangl, who is living in a legal registered partnership with another man, to sit on the parish council in the town of Stützenhofen. The German language Catholic news service Kreuz.net quoted Fr. Swierzek saying “I have a priestly conscience and I respect divine and ecclesiastical law.” He explained that he could not remain active in a parish, whose members “wanted their right at any price”.
He CITED the teaching of the Church according to Pope John Paul II and the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on homosexual behaviour. “Living in sin is not considered to be the norm in a Catholic Church community,” he said. “It is much more the task of a priest to bring a sinner to penance.”
Last week, Christoph Schönborn, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna overruled his priest and his own previous position, saying that Stangl’s election to the parish council was upheld. … having HAD LUNCHhad lunch with Stangl and his partner, “This man is at the right place,” the cardinal said.
A statement was later posted on the cardinal’s blog, saying, “…There are many parish councilors whose lifestyle does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church.
Novus Ordo watch (which I’m not recommending other than for this citation which omits charges of freemasonry, etc) lists more facts For those who don’t know the man:
•Schonborn, a Dominican, is a former student of Joseph Ratzinger
•Schonborn reportedly intervened with the Prince of neighboring Liechtenstein, asking him not to oppose sodomite civil unions
•Schonborn attended and endorsed the chaotic “Youth Masses” in his diocese — a video review of 8 years of these abominations ( includes nudity)
•Schonborn expressed his delight at the success of transvestite homosexual Conchita Wurst (Thomas Neuwirth), who won a European singing contest dressed as a bearded woman
•The “priest” in charge of Schonborn’s cathedral is Anton Faber, who habitually “BLESSES” SODOMITE COUPLES on St. Valentine’s Day every year.
•Schonborn hosted in his cathedral museum an “art” exhibit by the atheist communist Alfred Hrdlicka, which included A PAINTING OF THE LAST SUPPER DISPLAYED AS A HOMOSEXUAL ORGY (video availabe)
•Schonborn’s cathedral rector Faber gave a “Catholic” burial to the afore-mentioned atheist communist Hrdlicka, burying him in a red casket.
•Schonborn’s cathedral hosted scenes of the irreverent play SISTER ACT – DURING MASS”! (video available)
Schonborn is a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department that is charged with overseeing and enforcing orthodoxy in doctrine, AND it is reported he is next in line to head it.
John,
Would it not be more productive for you to try proving continuity between novelites of the present, and teachings of respected Pre-VII popes?
I don’t think you’ll find any, but it might help to convince you that you’re trying to silence the wrong people, if you really want to help our Church.
God bless us all
One other point about scandals ongoing–
Even if we overlook the arguments against declassifying mortal sin to venial “in some cases”, how can you deny that this conclusion does not justify causing world-wide scandal, by allowing people still living in a state of adultery–as defined by Christ- to receive the Eucharist? Was this not the reason for the prohibition being reiterated by JPII, who was fully aware of the Church teachings as well as Augustine and Aquinas on conscience? Was that not the reason Cardinal wrote a book objecting to the idea of Communion for anyone living in adultery, despite his former position as head of the Roman Rota? This is not mercy for the Church, it is a cause of great division.
Look at the fruits–more and more adulterers remaining in their sin, and now claiming exemption from mortal sin. Why wouldn’t they all claim they really believe its right for them? They’ve been living in sin which disposes them to more corruption. What would one more little lie matter to them?
Help us, Lord.
John Coltrane said this:
–
“And the same thing happens for the others sins. If they are culpably ignorant they should repent the fact that they let their consciences fall in the darkness, but nonetheless, if they can’t change their mind in their current state they HAVE to follow what their consciences tell them”
–
There is no “out” for disagreeing with the Church once one knows what the Church teaches. In fact, what you are describing is a person who is REBELLING AGAINST HIS NASCENT CONSCIENCE now that God has graced him to know what the Church teaches.
–
As a practical matter, how would you assess the following situation:
–
A husband knows and believes what the Church teaches regarding adultery. He nonetheless engages in adultery with another woman. He engages in this adultery for several months all the while believing he is committing grave sin. During the sixth month of the affair, he forms a firm belief that it would be better for all involved for him to divorce his wife and to marry his concubine. At this point he believes his “conscience” is guiding him to follow this path. After “forming his conscience in this manner” is he no longer guilty of mortal sin?
” Even if we overlook the arguments against declassifying mortal sin to venial “in some cases”, how can you deny that this conclusion does not justify causing world-wide scandal, by allowing people still living in a state of adultery–as defined by Christ- to receive the Eucharist?”
Most people today don’t view the second marriage as “scandalous” anymore.
You have to consider that a lot of different situations can occure: sometimes people divorce on mutual agreement because their marriage had become worse than a life sentence for both, and sometimes we have the situations of someone that has been abandoned.
And it’s very difficult to think -for many- the these people will be damned and are living in a state of mortal sin, because they found someone who really loves them and care about them.
They find impossibile to think that these people will be damned to hell. So in these cases the priest can discern the situation, to see if they are in a state of Grace due to mitigating factors because it’s obvious that these people cannot be dismissed as perveted adulterers when in most cases they don’t even think they are committing adultery because they can’t understand why they should be tied to a marriage fallen in disgrace and most important they don’t believe that God anatematizes their relationship and hates their happiness.
In these cases for many the scandal is not the mercy, but the past harshness of the Church.
We should all remember that the Lord scandalized everyone because of His Mercy.
” Would it not be more productive for you to try proving continuity between novelites of the present, and teachings of respected Pre-VII popes?
I don’t think you’ll find any, but it might help to convince you that you’re trying to silence the wrong people, if you really want to help our Church.”
There is a lot of pastoral discontinuity, but that is a whole different matter. Doctrine hasn’t changed.
I’m gonna ask you a question: why do you think that everyone was so scandalized about the Mercy of the Lord?
“So basically what it says was that Jesus was asking the Father to offer them the grace to ask for forgiveness and sadly as St Paul tells us in Romans 9-11 MOST of them rejected it. ”
Yes, but he explained also why they rejected it
“FOR GOD HAS BOUND EVERYONE OVER TO DISOBEDIENCE SO THAT HE MAY HAVE MERCY ON THEM ALL. “
These are not my words, these are the words of St Paul.
Maybe some Jews were sinning deliberately, but most of them, i think, were misled for some reason. St Paul explained this thing when he said
1 Corinthians 2,6-8
” We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. NONE OF THE RULERS OF THIS AGE UNDERSTOOD IT, FOR IF THEY HAD, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY ”
Again, these are not my words. The jews expected a “messianic” King who should have freed Israel, so i think most of them didn’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah for that reason.
Anyway, we don’t know how guilty were those Jews, but the words of Saint Paul seen pretty clear to me.
Well, you accuse me to worship the devil? Well, i’m not a tradiprotestant excommunicated scismatic like yourself, so i think you should worry about yourselfc
Speaking about the Muslims, most of them believe in Allah because they were brainwashed to think that their is the true religion, so i wouldn’t call that “ostinacy”.
St Paul wasn’t “obstinate” when he prosecuted the Christians, he was horribly mistaken and, when he received the Truth from the Lord, he fully accepted it.
Please, think what you would believe if you were born in Marocco and ponder the fact that we have no merits for being Catholics.
I think that even a good muslim can fin salvation if he is a man of good will. Not because his religion is salvific, but because Jesus doesn’t negate His Grace to people of good will.
I remember a muslim that died saying “Jesus i love you” or something like that, and he behaved like someone was near to his bed, so as i said countless times i think that Jesus can find ways to save even the muslims if they are men of good will.
” There is no “out” for disagreeing with the Church once one knows what the Church teaches. In fact, what you are describing is a person who is REBELLING AGAINST HIS NASCENT CONSCIENCE now that God has graced him to know what the Church teaches”.
That’s just what you scismatic excommunicated tradiprotestants are doing, so what?
You should thank the fact that God doesn’t hold accountable someone who follows his consience, otherwise you selfrighteous tradi-protestants would be in a GREAT danger.
“A husband knows and believes what the Church teaches regarding adultery. He nonetheless engages in adultery with another woman. He engages in this adultery for several months all the while believing he is committing grave sin. During the sixth month of the affair, he forms a firm belief that it would be better for all involved for him to divorce his wife and to marry his concubine. At this point he believes his “conscience” is guiding him to follow this path. After “forming his conscience in this manner” is he no longer guilty of mortal sin?”
Well i think that we must define adultery first. Most people know that it’s WRONG to betray their wife, but second remarriage are another thing
You have to consider that a lot of different situations can occure: sometimes people divorce on mutual agreement because their marriage had become worse than a life sentence for both, and sometimes we have the situations of someone that has been abandoned.
And it’s very difficult to think -for many- the these people will be damned and that are living in a state of mortal sin, because they found someone who really loves them and care about them.
They find impossibile to think that these people will be damned to hell. So in these cases the priest can discern the situation, to see if they are in a state of Grace due to mitigating factors because it’s obvious that these people cannot be dismissed as perveted adulterers when in most cases they don’t even think they are committing adultery because they can’t understand why they should be tied to a marriage fallen in disgrace and most important they don’t believe that God anatematizes their relationship and hates their happiness.
In these cases for many the scandal is not the mercy, but the past harshness of the Church.
We should all remember that the Lord scandalized everyone because of His Mercy.
If we speak about someone that betrayes his wife and by doing so he causes the marriage to fall in disgrace, i think that he will not be allowed to sacraments unless he reforms his life (but this case is a lot different from the ones i wrote about before)
Regarding this point
“At this point he believes his “conscience” is guiding him to follow this path. After “forming his conscience in this manner” is he no longer guilty of mortal sin?”
That man is guilty of the sin of letting his conscience fall into error. If he can’t change His mind anymore his responsibility if diminished for the sin of adultery that he is committing, but he is guilty of mortal sin because he culpably let his conscience fall into error, so he must repent about that.
Go and sin no more. John 8:11
Go and sin no more. John 8:11
Sorry, accidentally posted twice. But here it is for the third time, for clarity and in charity: Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery: “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
John C.
Thank God you asked that question, as it seems clear from your above responses to my question (of how you can justify the world wide scandal) -which JPII so deliberately avoided and is now being caused by Francis), you’re mis-applying the “scandal of Mercy” to the “scandal of sin”.
2,000 years of Church teaching, including JPII and the Council of Trent, were not about avoiding public disapproval or condemnation of the strictness of Church Laws ; their consistent avoidance of scandal, was to prevent people being led into Mortal sin.
The scandal of Our Lord’s mercy, referred those who would erroneously reject him for not keeping to trivial, unreasonable, or unnecessary laws -among the more than 500 the Jews had added to the 10 Commandments, such as the ritual hand washing before meals, healing on the sabboth, and stoning for female adulterers. (at the time, women were property of their husbands; a cheating husband was a fornicator, not an adulterer)
That type of scandal/shock had to be set aside to conform to God’s will.
The type of scandal that causes Mortal SIN, must be avoided-as Our Lord warned in Matthew’s Gospel: “Scandals will come, but WOE to those by whom they come.
I see you’ve listed emotional, earth-centered excuses and worldly reactions to them :
” marriage had become worse than a life sentence for both….someone that has been abandoned..it’s very difficult to think -for many…these people are in Moral sin and will be damned– because they FOUND SOMEONE who really loves them and care about them.”
Are you advocating the idea that marital difficulty SHOULD BE be resolved by breaking the vow and replacing the spouse, rather than living it out to the end with Grace and heroic virtue? If so, I must charitably correct you and warn you thatYour list, and Francis’s false Mercy which it represents, are that Mosaic laxity all over again. This is the cause of the explosion of blogposts since the recent Argentian letter that confirmed what he meant. Non-slumbering Catholics knew it since he had the heretic Kasper address the Synod fathers….
This is exactly why Our Lord made it so clear that leaving a spouse is Adultery, and that Mosaic laxity that allowed divorce and remarriage due to the stubbornnes of the Jews, was NOT God’s will. Do you think their reasons were all that different?
Here’s the best article I’ve ever read on the subject:
The Definition of Scandal
Fr. Augustine Tran
A word that very often pops up in our culture today is the word “scandal”. We hear it in reference to presidents, priests, and politicians. We talk of scandalous behavior, scandalous jokes, and even the scandal of the cross. Yet, it seems that this word has either lost its meaning or that people no longer know what it means.
The word scandal comes from the Greek word skandalon, which means “a stumbling block”. Now, while stumbling blocks are always a nuisance, they sometimes have a positive effect and sometimes a negative effect. The effect is positive if it forces us to do what is right (for example, speed bumps) or if it strengthens us, such as military obstacle courses do. The effect is negative if it hinders us from achieving a good end. This is the sense in which we use it when we talk about scandal as a sin.
If one were to look for the sin of scandal in the Catechism, one would find it under the fifth commandment. (And for our non-Catholic or non-Christian readers, I am sure with the recent attention on the ten commandment case in Alabama, we remember that the fifth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill.”) People are often surprised to hear that scandal is a sin against the fifth commandment, but that’s precisely what we’re doing when we scandalize someone. We’re killing his soul. When we think about it, this is far more damaging than killing someone’s body; because death of the soul means eternal damnation, death of the body does not.
Now, technically, when we scandalize someone, we’re not killing his soul, we’re tempting him into doing something that will kill his soul. We’re tempting him into committing a mortal sin. Remember that, by definition, no one can force us to commit a mortal sin; it must be done freely, so only we can kill our own soul, no one else can do that. However, what others can do, and what we can do to others, is to lead someone into temptation. By leading someone into temptation, we’re assisting in that person’s spiritual suicide, hence, we’re sinning against the fifth commandment.
There are nine ways of assisting in another’s sin: 1) by counsel; 2) by command; 3) by consent; 4) by provocation; 5) by praise or flattery; 6) by concealment; 7) by partaking; 8) by silence; and 9) by defense of the ill done. Each one of these is “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil” (CCC 2284), which is how the Catechism defines the sin of scandal. When we speak of presidents, priests, or politicians behaving scandalously, what we mean is that they are leading others to do evil, not that they’re doing something shocking, but that by their example, they lead others to behave in the same way. They lead others into thinking that that sort of behavior is not sinful when it really is.
Now, where our secular society has gone astray with regard to scandals is that the world is scandalized by truth rather than by evil. The truth that sets us free has become the stumbling block that we avoid, and the evils that separate us from God are just ignored like so many shallow speed bumps. Just turn on the T.V. and see how acceptable is that crude, profane, soft-core pornography that we call prime time television or soap operas and yet how unacceptable is the preaching of the gospels in the public square, displaying the ten commandments in our public buildings, the teaching of abstinence to our children, or the invocation of the name of God in our schools.
Our Lord’s teachings in Chapter 12 of Luke’s Gospel is a scandal for many in today’s world. He came to establish division, not peace on the earth, division even in the home. Our Lord knew well that it would be difficult to stand up for the truth, that it had the potential to separate families. He knew that people would be tempted to choose the easy way out rather than cause the waves that are demanded by a firm conviction in the faith, so He let us know ahead of time what to expect, that we might have the courage to stand up for the truth even when it’s a stumbling block for others.
What truths? That there is only one Savior of mankind and His name is Jesus Christ. That He founded only one Church, which subsists in the Holy Roman Church. That there is a triune God Who is actively engaged in human affairs. That there is a priestly people, without distinction based upon sex, but that there is also a priestly ministry, to which God calls only men. That human sexuality is a sacred gift reserved for the life-long marital covenant between one man and one woman. That abortion and euthanasia are the intentional killing of innocent human life. That human life is created, not made. That artificial means of birth control are intrinsically evil. These are just a few of the politically incorrect truths to which I am referring. The truths that are stumbling blocks for so many people today, and yet, the truths that set us free.
Standing up for our faith has the potential to divide families and end friendships, as our Lord reminds us in Luke’s Gospel; but not doing so can cause far more damage for it scandalizes our family and friends. It gives the example that our faith is not that important, that eternal salvation does not depend upon these truths, that it’s okay to be indifferent, to be lukewarm in one’s faith when, in fact, Christ tells us that He vomits out of His mouth those who are lukewarm (Rev 3:16). Far greater damage is done by this sin of scandal than by the conviction that may cause division in the family, the ending of a friendship, or, on the other hand, the conviction that may just jolt someone into taking his faith seriously.
The truth is ultimately what sets us free, what leads to eternal peace. As Christians we’re called to teach and educate others about the good news of Jesus Christ, about these truths of our faith be they difficult ones or easy ones. It’s easy to preach that God’s mercy is great and His love infinite. It’s easy to preach that all prodigals who come home to the Father will be welcomed with open arms. And it’s easy to preach that the gates of Heaven have been opened. And all those things are true. But those prodigals will never come home to be welcomed if they’re never challenged to repentance; and we do not help loved ones through those heavenly gates by scandalizing them, nor do we help our own faith.
Let us pray this day, then, for that grace of courage and conviction in our faith that leads to true peace and salvation.
© Copyright 2003 Catholic Exchange
(Fr Augustine H.T. Tran attended seminary at the North American College in Rome, Italy and was ordained to the priesthood in 1998. He serves in the Archdiocese of Atlanta, and is currently in residence at St. John Catholic Church in McLean, Virginia, while he completes a Canon Law Degree at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He may be contacted via e-mail at atran@alumni.nd.edu.) (2003 available info)
God Bless
p.s. I won’t get into it here, as it’s an entirely different subject, but the only line in Fr.’s discourse that sounded VII was the one referring to the One church Jesus founded -“which subsists” in the Roman Church.
Saints, preserve us.
John, I’m putting this response to your “French kissing” comments here, due to missing these repeated challenges earlier, and lack of space above.
Absolutely, yes. The Church had every reason to condemn it, just as they condemn masturbation-which has the same effect on the individual. It simulates the sex act, inciting lust.
Jesus condemned even lustful thoughts–back to adultery, arent’ we?
The real question here, is WHY do you think it such a trivial matter, that you are using it as if it were such an obvious example of nonsensical church teaching, or “impossible”, that we should all agree with your point?.
Canon 212 blog headlined this post over at Catholic Collar and Tie
John, I think it was written to open the eyes of people like you, to what has been going on in the Church since Vatican II. It speaks to some of the points you have emphasized here, and comes from faithful priest.
Title: A New Faith? Update Catechism #1735
I have heard some harsh remarks about Pope Francis, especially since the publication of Amoris Laetitia (following which I actually heard him described as ‘evil’). But the real culprit is Satan, with whom it is characteristic to take a truth and distort it so as to achieve a bad end. He did this in the Garden of Eden when he distorted the truth of man made in the image and likeness of God so as to turn man from God to self: “God knows that in the day you eat it, your eyes shall be opened and you shall be like gods, knowing good from evil” (Gen.3v4-5). This is also his tactic today: to mix the light of truth with the darkness of lies in such a way as to achieve the colour grey: the grey fog of relativism in which souls literally lose their way to heaven. In seminary there were a number of students who could be heard to say ‘grey is the devil’s favourite colour’. Today Satan distorts ‘do not judge’ (which concerns not judging people) into not judging actions and situations; a distortion for which Pope Francis might be said to have fallen. Sadly, this distortion advances the work of the father of lies, rather than the work of the Holy Spirit.
Pope Francis has often spoken of the God of Surprises, wherein we are asked to be surprised by new ideas and new ways; ways which take us out of the certainties of The Faith into the enemy’s ‘grey areas’. One can only echo St Paul who said, “I fear that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes preaching a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you are all too willing to listen” (2 Cor.11:3, 4).
Has Pope Francis has fallen for the devil’s tactic? Many might say yes, because while he obviously cares for those in difficult circumstances and seeks to help them while seeking to leave doctrine intact, he has also indicated that we can at times ignore Doctrine by admitting to Holy Communion those who are objectively in grave sin (adultery). Such a practice [1] exposes the Blessed Sacrament to sacrilege, [2] exposes souls to the possibility of dying in mortal sin, and [3] brings the Church to a state of self-contradiction wherein practice runs contrary to belief. Catholics see this as a dangerous situation, for it allows pastoral practice to be divorced from the truths of The Faith (no pun intended). Pope Francis, by referring to a ‘God of Surprises’ and ‘grey areas’, has left himself open to being described dangerous to souls, for by placing his pastoral directives over and above the words the Lord in Scripture and Tradition, we are led away from Catholicism to a new faith which might be called ‘Francisism’.
We will need a strong Pope after Francis; one who is unafraid to see the good in what Francis has achieved as well as the errors he has made, so that he may affirm the former and anathematise the latter. Many admit to being disorientated and disturbed by Pope Francis, but we have to remember that Francis cannot re-write 2,000 years of doctrine and practice: a pope is infallible only in defending the known truth; he is not divinely inspired so as to add to it, abandon it or in any way alter it. We should remember that at the end of the day, if Francis can go against 2,000 years of Catholicism, a successor can go against (#) years of ‘Francisism’.
I have been asked, do we ignore #1735 of the Catechism by refusing Holy Communion to those in adulterous situations? The answer is no; article #1735 says “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”, and refers to ones culpability before God; it does not mean the Church can support an on-going situation that objectively contravenes Divine Truth/Divine Law. The Church cannot put herself in opposition to such Laws/Truths as found in the 6th Commandment and Matthew 19v9. It is scandalous for anyone to attempt to overrule or even simply ignore the teaching of God-made-man.
http://catholiccollarandtie.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/a-new-faith.html
In the comments Fr. Dickson posted afterwards, one person asked him to name any good Francis has done, pointing out that Amoris is like a cake, containing poisonous raisins and nuts. He went on a while and then apologized for his “rant”, leaving it to be edited.
Father’s response was that it was not a rant, and was, very interesting.
John C.,
I noticed one of your earlier replies in response to what you see as the good fruits of VII, where you said you think the Council was necessary and things would be worse now without it.
My jaw dropped, as I’ve lived through this transition to hell on earth, and find it hard to imagine anything so horrible as the massive loss of Faith since the council, and the corruption of society I’ve witnessed while the scandals mounted in the hierarchy and vocations dropped to an all time low.
I could list a thousand things that have almost reached rock bottom since then, but I don’t want to further depress those struggling to get through these dark times.
Look at a few polls reporting the number of Catholics who still believe in the real presence. Check into the faith of those in areas where the numbers are increasing, and see whether their beliefs are contaminated by inculturation of satanic practices–which I most often see in Africa, and South America.
We look and sound officially like a communist social work agency, with a protestant non-denominational flavor.
Not all it’s true. But those I’ve encountered that have kept the Faith well, don’t practice the indifferentism the Council initiated, which is leaving the world in a state of original sin, without Sanctifying Grace.
God help us if that scenario is being celebrated as better than what we had before Vatican II. Mary, Help of Christian, pray for us.
P.S. It is my fervent hope that one day we will be united in our beliefs. We are all passionate about them, and I’m positive that is pleasing to God, who has told us he prefers hot or cold, to the luke-warm. The brotherly love experienced in the early Christian Communities, was such that it had those outside of our Faith, wondering at the love they saw evidenced by how Christians interacted. The current climate, in which we’re having to battle falsehoods coming from the top down, bottom up, and everywhere in-between, often doesn’t leave that impression. So I’d just like to let you know it’s there as strongly for you, and it is for those who agree with traditional beliefs, and it my hope that you will believe that, despite all the disagreements that remain unsolved for now, and the irritations you may have felt as you took on this barrage of responses, single-handedly for the Lord we all love. I admire that spirit. God bless you, and God bless us all.
“Go and follow your conscience”
After reviewing all of John C’s posts on conscience, above, I think it would be more helpful to the discussion, here, and to anyone reading through this in the days to come, to correct one part of what I concluded above.
Rather than claim he and they are putting conscience on a pedestal above everything else, It seems more accurate to say that those who teach about it- such as Aquinas whom he quotes, presented “unculpable ignorance” as a concept which most likely occurs very rarely, and under a certain set of circumstances -other than those by which men normally judge a person’s actions to determine level of culpability accurately. I really don’t see how anyone but God COULD know when those fully and truly are present, so I don’t see how it can be delegated as a power to a priest in a confessional or even in counseling even if it were limited to being an attempt to help the individual to change–apart from the Communion issue. It would likely leave many mis-diagnosed and more confused and/or in danger of hell than ever. Since the priest would likely err on the side of leniency these days, and Communion for continuing adulterers would be the result, harming the Faithful and creating general scandal and more confusion; it seems like a modernist selfish act and a trick to get their way on this issue, rather than a pursuit of fairness or truth or virtue or help for sinners. And it’s not putting the common good where it belongs according to what I’ve read of Aquinas.
I’m obviously a slow-learner when it comes to these weighty matters, and this revision may still not be the best way to describe these things. BUT, this greater understanding makes me more convinced that John’s support of Amoris is a great error. Francis the Merciful has arrived to attempt to reverse God’s Good shepherding of 2,000 years by officially instituting modernist evil practices as new norms, and bashing those who object as rigid and judgmental and selfish.
To object to this, as I see Mike and John C discussed above, is NOT a matter of our being petulant or jealous like those in the Vineyard who received the same pay–i.e. petty and childish. It’s prudence and love to prevent Priests counselors are being put in a position to further damage the Church. And seeing their penchant for leniency, rather than strictness, it makes NO sense to think this will not end in disaster, if it is not stopped.
So I still believe John C’s main contentions are wrong as is his trying to blame ignorance of these principles as the cause of our not supporting it.
The true cause of our concerns is plain old common sense and experience with human nature and the beast called scandal.
He shrugged that off a number of times, as if it’s just “too bad” we’re so petty that we don’t have his and Francis’ charitable take on life, which of course is the same as Our Lord’s
Not so. Jesus told us “Woe to him by whom scandal comes” and gave the verdict of a millstone around the neck and the dropping into the ocean as the just desserts for it. I suppose there are different levels of scandal-mongering, just as there are differing levels of deliberateness for sin. So I leave the judging and punishment of that to God, and continue to strongly oppose what they are trying to do. I can’t help but feel that a little good old fear of the Lord’s justice and the fires of hell, is just what the doc should order, here.
But the Consecration of Russia will most likely have to come first, before enough of our shepherds are re-oriented back to True justice and mercy.
I’ve added a correction to this post -further down, regarding the notion of conscience on a pedestal.
The note below this, concerning the above correction, got posted in the wrong place. please Ignore… 🙂
Thank you, HelpusLord, for your patience and exhibition of reason and respect for Revelation given to us in Sacred Tradition. It is thrown into relief by the tortuous, internally inconsistent, subjective and defiant and hubristic pseudo-intellectual analysis of the disobedient modernist. The modernist despises objective truths and objective truth He destroys Faith and reason by subjecting God to his desires, his idea. The evil indifferentism creates an idolatry of the false prophet and his false, irrational ideas.
Yes. I think Fr. Dickson said it best when he wrote of “pastoral practice being divorced from truth”. That about sums up the core problem of the past 60 years or so. I have to admit I never thought I’d see a Pope claim that God Himself wills sin to continue–“in certain cases”. The end has GOT to be near.
Keep the Faith.