Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

[Giuliano]

Hi Giuliano,
Can you tell me what that is ? Curious :)

Peace!

I found it interesting myself. They allow up to three marriages. . . reluctantly. Their reason:

As sacrament, marriage is not a magical act, but a gift of grace. The partners, being humans, may have made a mistake in soliciting the grace of marriage when they were not ready for it; or they may prove to be unable to make this grace grow to maturity. In those cases, the Church may admit the fact that the grace was not “received,” tolerate separation and allow remarriage. But, of course, she never encourages any remarriage—we have seen that even in the case of widowers—because of the eternal character of the marriage bond; but only tolerates it when, in concrete cases, it appears as the best solution for a given individual.

I wonder if God is doing the joining, who can tell if two people have been joined by God. If two people fight all the time after getting married, can we believe the two were made one by God? So I agree with the Orthodox that people completely unable to love each other so they could made one by God could believe they were married when really they were married only in secular terms. An Orthodox priest explained it to me something like this, "One divorce is bad enough. People should learn from their mistakes, so maybe a second marriage will work out. Two divorces is even worse; and if you didn't learn your lesson after two divorces and three wives, you probably wouldn't learn however many times you got married, so don't expect any more divorces."

What if a woman had loose morals and her husband thought he was marrying a virgin only to find out after the ceremony she wasn't? Is any contract valid if one of the parties used deceit? What if a man married a woman only for her looks and she married him because he lied and said he loved her? Would God join a couple when one was lying? Perhaps not -- perhaps the marriage existed in secular terms only -- it never happened spiritually. The Catholic Church already admits that fraudulent marriages never existed, so an annulment is possible.

It seems similar to the question about people who lie to a priest. A priest may think people have been absolved of their sins, but would they be if they lied? No, such a lie is a mortal sin, is it not?

I think maybe the solution to the problem Pope Francis and the Church face may be to clarify the grounds for annulment.

 

[Giuliano]

I think perhaps what Francis is doing is moving away from the arbitrary stance of Catholicism, giving such a situation a more Christian perspective.

I like that he's concerned about the welfare of innocent children. That seems very Christian to me. It shows me his love for others, especially children who've done nothing wrong.

 

[brakelite]

I like that he's concerned about the welfare of innocent children. That seems very Christian to me. It shows me his love for others, especially children who've done nothing wrong.

The issue I have with him is that he is a Jesuit. Can you believe him, or does he have an ulterior motive?

 

[Giuliano]

The issue I have with him is that he is a Jesuit. Can you believe him, or does he have an ulterior motive?

He often seems to act on impulse without thinking things through. He doesn't seem to have the kind of guile to have an ulterior motive. Take how he handled the child abuse crisis in Chile. I figure Bishop Juan Barros put on a charming act when he me the Pope, and other figures in church hierarchy probably said flattering things about Barros. The Pope liked him, thought he was a fine fellow. Then when people objected to Barros because they knew that Barros knew about the child abuse by a priest and he didn't stop it, Pope Francis jumped to the defense of Barros without knowing what he was doing. He liked him and so he accused the victims of slander.

Pope stuns Chile, accusing paedophilia victims of slander

“The day they bring me proof against Bishop (Juan) Barros, then I will speak,” the pope said in response to a journalist’s question about the 61-year-old bishop, appointed by Francis in 2015 despite being accused of covering up another priest’s abuse of boys.

“There is not a single piece of proof against him. Everything is slander,” he said before celebrating open-air mass in the northern city of Iquique.

Then things got hotter, and Francis got some facts. He even had one of the victims come to Rome. To his credit, he acknowledged his mistakes and apologized. How many Popes have you seen doing that? I was glad to see it, because that too told me he believed in confessing our sins and asking others for forgiveness.

Pope apologizes for 'serious mistakes' in judging Chilean abuse cases

The pope said he made "serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation, especially due to a lack of truthful and balanced information."

"I ask forgiveness of all those I have offended and I hope to be able to do it personally in the coming weeks," the pope said in the letter, which was released by the Vatican April 11. Several survivors apparently have been invited to the Vatican to meet the pope.

I think he genuinely likes people. The interview I heard by one of the victims who met Francis said he was very relaxed, friendly and easy to get along with. Being that way has its pitfalls though since we can show favoritism to people we like, sometimes even siding with the guilty.

 

[bbyrd009]

There are MANY differences between all the manuscripts we have...of which I'm sure of at least 51 and I think there are more by now. If anyone wishes to look this up they could google P51 and see what they get.

i tried "p51" and "p51 bible" and got no relevant return, you might post a link if you would, but i'm not disagreeing about differences in translations, even significant ones, which i think that is what thats about?

 

[GodsGrace]

I think the Gerhard quote is a good one. Not sure what else can be said, GG. You don’t have to like it.

Please post the Gerhard quote.
Please remember that there are those in the CC that, like @BreadOfLife of life insist on one of the following:

1. THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN CATHOLIC TEACHING.

2. THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE BUT IT'S ONLY DISCIPLINE AND NOT DOCTRINE.


????????
Do YOU see a conflict above?
The CC sure did and discussed it for at least two years that I can remember.

Yes...it leaves one scratching their heads....
Not only BISHOPS AND CARDINALS (which is a title) THAT AGREE THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN DOCTRINE,,,,but many of the laity too.

As is expressed below by those that know much more than we do, but states that this very change will be confusing to the laity:

He went on, in the same section, to say:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

source: Pope Francis on the Divorced and Remarried: 10 Things to Know and Share

This is a complicated matter, but simple in its truths,,,,
BoL is making it too simple....if it were that simple, there would have been no outcry in the church when Amoris Laetitia was published,,,and dare I say BEFORE THAT since we all know what it would state.

 

[GodsGrace]

What do you do if a woman got a divorce, remarries, has a child and then would like to repent and return to the Church? Should she separate the child from the father? Should she move out leaving the child with the father? Then there economic issues. If she lives as a single mom, can she support the child? Will the child's welfare be at risk? I think Pope Francis was moved by the harm that could be done to children.

I wish the Catholic Church would move closer to the position of the Orthodox Church about remarriage.

Hi G,

I've been trying to remember to put a disclaimer at the bottom of my post to BoL.

I'm not saying I agree with the doctrine of the CC.....
I'm just stating what the CC teaches, to which BoL is not in agreement.

A thread on this would be interesting....

 

[GodsGrace]

i tried "p51" and "p51 bible" and got no relevant return, you might post a link if you would, but i'm not disagreeing about differences in translations, even significant ones, which i think that is what thats about?

Hi bb,
No ,,, it's about how many manuscripts we have and how YOUNG they are...
at least 150 years after Jesus ascension.

Here are some links....51 BTW, means the 51st papyrus found..P stands for papyrus..there are more after this one, and, of course, before this one.

Manuscript P51 - CSNTM


Papyrus 51 - Wikipedia


Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi bb,
No ,,, it's about how many manuscripts we have and how YOUNG they are...
at least 150 years after Jesus ascension.

Here are some links....51 BTW, means the 51st papyrus found..P stands for papyrus..there are more after this one, and, of course, before this one.

Manuscript P51 - CSNTM


Papyrus 51 - Wikipedia


Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts

a 4th or 5th century and Alexandrian fragment to boot? Guess i'm missing the point there, but why do you say "51 discrepancies" bc this fragment is labelled "papyrus 51?" i dont get it, sorry

 

[GodsGrace]

a 4th or 5th century and Alexandrian fragment to boot? Guess i'm missing the point there, but why do you say "51 discrepancies" bc this fragment is labelled "papyrus 51?" i dont get it, sorry

No...there are not 51 discrepancies.
It means 50 manuscripts were found before this one.
and more were found after this one.

The first "original" manuscript they found was numbered P1.
Papyrus
1st one

Then P2 etc.

Papyrus means "paper" Something flat they wrote on. if it was a scroll it would have been S51...
See?

There are many mistakes because people had to copy by hand....
the N.T. was not as well controlled as the O.T.

It's good to study this because it allows us to know whether or not the N.T. can be trusted as to doctrine...whether or not we could reconcile it to the early Christians.

 

[bbyrd009]

No...there are not 51 discrepancies.
It means 50 manuscripts were found before this one.
and more were found after this one.

The first "original" manuscript they found was numbered P1.
Papyrus
1st one

Then P2 etc.

Papyrus means "paper" Something flat they wrote on. if it was a scroll it would have been S51...
See?

There are many mistakes because people had to copy by hand....
the N.T. was not as well controlled as the O.T.

It's good to study this because it allows us to know whether or not the N.T. can be trusted as to doctrine...whether or not we could reconcile it to the early Christians.

ok but fwiw note how it all stays quite vague, yeh? We're at what like at least five posts each on this subject now, which still has not even been delineated or whatever, what are these mistakes you speak of?

 

[GodsGrace]

I found it interesting myself. They allow up to three marriages. . . reluctantly. Their reason:

As sacrament, marriage is not a magical act, but a gift of grace. The partners, being humans, may have made a mistake in soliciting the grace of marriage when they were not ready for it; or they may prove to be unable to make this grace grow to maturity. In those cases, the Church may admit the fact that the grace was not “received,” tolerate separation and allow remarriage. But, of course, she never encourages any remarriage—we have seen that even in the case of widowers—because of the eternal character of the marriage bond; but only tolerates it when, in concrete cases, it appears as the best solution for a given individual.

I wonder if God is doing the joining, who can tell if two people have been joined by God. If two people fight all the time after getting married, can we believe the two were made one by God? So I agree with the Orthodox that people completely unable to love each other so they could made one by God could believe they were married when really they were married only in secular terms. An Orthodox priest explained it to me something like this, "One divorce is bad enough. People should learn from their mistakes, so maybe a second marriage will work out. Two divorces is even worse; and if you didn't learn your lesson after two divorces and three wives, you probably wouldn't learn however many times you got married, so don't expect any more divorces."

G, when you post words that are not yours, you really should post the source...plus if gives readers the oppty to read the entire article.

You should really start a thread on this...it's extremely important and interesting...
But anyway...

Two people have been joined by God when one of His "representatives" is present (like a pastor or priest). The two are their own sacrament "makers", but the rep is a rep of God...this is because when the two make promises to EACH OTHER...GOD IS PRESENT and so the promise is also to God.

God is not a match maker! He does not meddle in each and every decision we make although it would be nice if He were CONSULTED before making some decisions. We are still only human and make mistakes. Because we made a mistake is no reason for a divorce. Especially when children are involved. We have become a very selfish society.

As to what the Orthodox minister said....this sounds SO WRONG.
I DO believe that marriage is a sacrament to them...but they do allow remarriage.
In the CC marriage is a sacrament also but divorce is only allowed in very strict circumstances, which I post in no. 139 AND remarriage is not allowed, because once a person is married in the catholic church that marriage remains valid forever and only death of one partener will end it.

What if a woman had loose morals and her husband thought he was marrying a virgin only to find out after the ceremony she wasn't? Is any contract valid if one of the parties used deceit? What if a man married a woman only for her looks and she married him because he lied and said he loved her? Would God join a couple when one was lying? Perhaps not -- perhaps the marriage existed in secular terms only -- it never happened spiritually. The Catholic Church already admits that fraudulent marriages never existed, so an annulment is possible.

It seems similar to the question about people who lie to a priest. A priest may think people have been absolved of their sins, but would they be if they lied? No, such a lie is a mortal sin, is it not?

I think maybe the solution to the problem Pope Francis and the Church face may be to clarify the grounds for annulment.

In fact, two things have happened in the past few years.

1. Pope Francis has made it easier to receive an annulment...which simply means that a valid marriage never took place.

2. I believe the cost of an annulment has dropped drastically. (not sure how much).

3. This has become the NEW Catholic type divorce. What he basically did was to teach catholics how to "divorce" and get remarried...which, as you've stated is the same as lying to a priest.
This Pope has made a mess...and it's not me saying this but those in the church that have to be pastors to the laity and to priests.

 

[GodsGrace]

ok but fwiw note how it all stays quite vague, yeh? We're at what like at least five posts each on this subject now, which still has not even been delineated or whatever, what are these mistakes you speak of?

OK.

So Luke writes his gospel and some church in Demascus would like a copy.
How to get a copy?
Somebody has to get the papyrus,,,,pay someone to copy it,
or copy it themselves.

NO PROFESSIONALS SCRIBES AROUND...like for the O.T. when EVERY WORD in each sentence was counted to make sure they didn't miss one. Although some scholars believe there are mistakes there too, but very few and of a type which we will get into....

So some poor guy needs days and maybe weeks to get each word.
He's tired. He gets some words mixed up. Maybe he misses a word.
One manuscript says that Jesus told the woman. GO AND SIN....
Most scholars believe this story is not even true history because it is NOT in early manuscripts.
How to know for sure?

So some mistakes are made.
Now another church wants a copy.
It gets the copy from Damascus and copies from that...

AND SO IT GOES....

What is amazing and has the touch of God is that although there are MISTAKES in the bible (which is different from discrepancies) the moral teachings of Christ remain in tact....
Soteriology remains in tact - how to get saved.

Mistakes made (which are many) do not affect what Jesus taught.
THIS IS THE MIRACLE.

Oh. And a person had to be pretty wealthy to even own books.
90% of the population was illiterate.
Papyrus cost a lot.
Paying a copier cost a lot.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, we're not discussing adultery and fornication.

Those are SINS and are doctrinal matters. Withholding or allowing the reception of the Eucharist from such people is a Disciplinary matter.
Withholding the Eucharist from a politician who supports abortion is ALSO a disciplinary matter.

ALL of your failed arguments on this subject are born from a complete ignorance of Catholic teaching.
So, here is yet another official text from the Code of Canon Law. Maybe NOW, you will finally accept that you LIED and were exposed . . .

PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA
vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin
R. L. BURKE
ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

"The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin [1]. The denial of Holy Communion can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332) (i.e., DISCIPLINE), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

Saint Basil the Great, in his First Letter on the Canons, indicates that the man who marries his brother's wife is not to be permitted to receive Holy Communion, until he separates from her. [12] He, likewise, declares that the widow who takes a husband after her sixtieth year is not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until <<she will have renounced her impure passion>> [13]. Although little commentary is offered regarding the reason for the DISCIPLINE, it seems clear that, in both cases, the reason for the prohibition is a public violation of the Church's DISCIPLINE regarding marriage and the resulting scandal in the community. The just-mentioned canons of Saint Basil the Great are among the fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which corresponds to the DISCIPLINE articulated in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law14.

The DISCIPLINE is clear. Holy Communion is to be denied to the public sinner, whether the congregation is large or small. The minister, however, is not responsible for giving the Sacrament to the known heretic whom he fails to recognize because of the size of the crowd.

From the Decretal Law, it is clear that Church DISCIPLINE places an obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to refuse Holy Communion to persons known, by the public, to be in mortal sin. The DISCIPLINE, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul, safeguards the recognition of the most sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist, preventing public sinners from inflicting further grave damage upon their souls through the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist and safeguarding the faithful from the inevitable confusion regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament, which is caused by the admission of manifest and grave sinners to the reception of Holy Communion.

Ihe language of the DISCIPLINE reflects the language of the Decretal Law. The same language will be found in the subsequent articulation of the Church's DISCIPLINE.


This is OFFICIAL text from the Church hierarchy and quotes Canon Law regarding this matter.

As I have repeatedly told you - withholding Communion from ANYBODY is a DISCIPLINARY matter - NOT a doctrinal one.
But YOU chose to spew lie after lie after lie - and now you've been exposed again . . .

Good evening BoL...
Once again, you have posted links to MY ADVANTAGE and we shall soon learn why.

As usual,,,you DID NOT post the source, but I see you'd like to get involved in CANON LAW.
No Mr. BoL...we are not heading down the path of canon law since I am not a CANONICAL atty and NEITHER ARE YOU.

As you well know and as I've stated earlier, the word DISCIPLINE is also used to mean TEACHING. If you replace all of the above words in red,,,,discipline...with the word teaching, you will see that it makes perfect sense.

As I've said a dicipline is a teaching that can be changed...

AND NOW, we will find out why giving COMMUNION TO THOSE IN MORTAL SIN
CANNOT be changed....This comes as a surprise to you?
You believe someone in constant and continuing mortal sin CAN receive communion?
This would be the case in a divorced and remarried catholic since in the CC DIVORCE does not exist and even in the rare cases that divorce is allowed,,,THE MARRIAGE IS NOT DISSOLVED...the husband will remain the husband till death.

As I've stated....there are DOGMAS/DOCTRINE in the CC that are complicated and hold within them disciplines that can be changed. Marriage, divorce, remarriage and the receiving of Holy Communion is one of these cases.

It's amazing to me that you do not understand the complexity of this situation (caused by Pope Francis) and perhaps it's because you did not participate in meetings regarding this? Even though you taught these principles? Surprising indeed.

This is what the CC teaches about marriage....and what the CC believes and teaches about marriage CANNOT change because it is a decree and sacrament established by God Himself, which the following will show: The blue is mine.

Because Matrimony as a natural contract is of divine origin, it is always subject to the law of God.6 3

Since every baptized person is a member of the Church and so subject to the law of the Church in religious matters, 64 the marriages of such persons are regulated by Canon Law, as well as by Divine Law.6 5

[Divine law trumps canon law, as does the Law of God]

Marriage between baptized persons is always a Sacrament. 66 The Sacraments, as the chief 62 Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, 26 GEO. 2, c. 33 (1753); Jews and Quakers, by provision in § 18 of the Act, were exempt from the law's requirement as to celebration. 63 Matt. 19, 3-12; Mark 10, 2-12; Luke 16, 14-18. 64 Can. 87 C.I.C. 65 Can. 1016 C.I.C.; Can. 5 M.P. 66 Can. 1012, § 2 C.I.C.; Can. 1, § 2 M.P. means of sanctification and salvation, are to be received and administered with the greatest care and reverence. 67

It is for these reasons that the Church has a double duty in respect to Matrimony. The Church must teach the law of marriage as established by God, and it must implement that law by preventing abuse of the Sacrament of Matrimony entrusted to its special care.

[as you must surely know....any law established by GOD is a dogma, please see my post no. 139]

The Church is bound by the Divine Law she teaches; she cannot change the nature of marriage from what it is by divine ordination. At the same time, the Church must use its discipline to bar from marriage those who would assume that state without consideration of its sacred responsibilities. The law of form is enacted in fulfillment of that second duty.

source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ef40/8755750e37d21aef0f5bd1c473a6b5bab37f.pdf


part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

part 2 of 2



Now, we'll see why your post is to my advantage.
Just look at the title, and please note that this was written BEFORE Pope Francis' exhortation of 2016.... Your post clearly states that changes CANNOT BE MADE to those who OBSTINATELY PERSEVERE IN GRAVE SIN...as those that are divorced and remarried are EXACTLY doing...

BUT, ALAS, this Pope has made this change in Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 with footnote 315...
which I have posted several times and which you should really be familiar with...

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin
R. L. BURKE
ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

"The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin [1]. The denial of Holy Communion can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332) (i.e., DISCIPLINE), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

So the large, red words are pretty, but are of no importance to your case. My, the above even speaks of EX COMMUNICATION in such cases!

ANY church document you could post will show that those in GRAVE SIN CANNOT RECEIVE COMMUNION,,,,and yet this Pope has stated that they can...
and you think this is ONLY A TEACHING?

This is a dogma.....

Marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved.
This is a dogma.

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and cannot be received when in MORTAL SIN.
This is a dogma.

Married and divorced persons that have remarried are living in MORTAL SIN.
They are not allowed to receive communion...
THIS POPE HAS CHANGED THIS...making it possible for them to receive communion.

A dogma is a law of GOD and not of man.
A dogma cannot be changed.
Please see my post 139 if you're not aware of what a dogma is.

 

[bbyrd009]

OK.

So Luke writes his gospel and some church in Demascus would like a copy.
How to get a copy?
Somebody has to get the papyrus,,,,pay someone to copy it,
or copy it themselves.

NO PROFESSIONALS SCRIBES AROUND...like for the O.T. when EVERY WORD in each sentence was counted to make sure they didn't miss one. Although some scholars believe there are mistakes there too, but very few and of a type which we will get into....

So some poor guy needs days and maybe weeks to get each word.
He's tired. He gets some words mixed up. Maybe he misses a word.
One manuscript says that Jesus told the woman. GO AND SIN....
Most scholars believe this story is not even true history because it is NOT in early manuscripts.
How to know for sure?

So some mistakes are made.
Now another church wants a copy.
It gets the copy from Damascus and copies from that...

AND SO IT GOES....

What is amazing and has the touch of God is that although there are MISTAKES in the bible (which is different from discrepancies) the moral teachings of Christ remain in tact....
Soteriology remains in tact - how to get saved.

Mistakes made (which are many) do not affect what Jesus taught.
THIS IS THE MIRACLE.

Oh. And a person had to be pretty wealthy to even own books.
90% of the population was illiterate.
Papyrus cost a lot.
Paying a copier cost a lot.

yes, valid enough imo.
Textual variants in the New Testament | Wikiwand
but i've waded through these before, sure didnt seem to amount to anything to me

 

[GodsGrace]

yes, valid enough imo.
Textual variants in the New Testament | Wikiwand
but i've waded through these before, sure didnt seem to amount to anything to me

Wow. Very good, I just went through it quick.

Here's why I think it's important.
There was a guy on another forum that would go on for PAGES about ONE WORD.
There's someone here that is about the same..actually more than one person...

The point is that we can't hang on every word in the N.T.
This is why I keep saying that it's an entire thought and I don't even like pulling out verses,,,
but it's all we've got....

I also think it's wonderful to know history and to know that history confirms scripture and does not take away from it...except maybe for those that make the BIBLE THEIR GOD...they must find this
intimidating.

 

[Grailhunter]

Now you see @BreadOfLife ...you can do humor....I am a world traveler....so I say as I wish. Besides proper grammar is boring! Have you noticed that authors do not use proper grammar....because it is boring. I know because I wrote a 1900 page book on Christianity.... I know authors and they do not use proper grammar and it is a condition of proof reading their books. Do not mess with their grammar.

 

[BreadOfLife]

part 2 of 2
Now, we'll see why your post is to my advantage.
Just look at the title, and please note that this was written BEFORE Pope Francis' exhortation of 2016.... Your post clearly states that changes CANNOT BE MADE to those who OBSTINATELY PERSEVERE IN GRAVE SIN...as those that are divorced and remarried are EXACTLY doing...

BUT, ALAS, this Pope has made this change in Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 with footnote 315...
which I have posted several times and which you should really be familiar with...

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin
R. L. BURKE
ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

"The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin [1]. The denial of Holy Communion can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332) (i.e., DISCIPLINE), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

So the large, red words are pretty, but are of no importance to your case. My, the above even speaks of EX COMMUNICATION in such cases!

ANY church document you could post will show that those in GRAVE SIN CANNOT RECEIVE COMMUNION,,,,and yet this Pope has stated that they can...
and you think this is ONLY A TEACHING?

This is a dogma.....

Marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved.
This is a dogma.

The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and cannot be received when in MORTAL SIN.
This is a dogma.

Married and divorced persons that have remarried are living in MORTAL SIN.
They are not allowed to receive communion...
THIS POPE HAS CHANGED THIS...making it possible for them to receive communion.

A dogma is a law of GOD and not of man.
A dogma cannot be changed.
Please see my post 139 if you're not aware of what a dogma is.

First of all – I should probably apologize for stating that your posts were completely dishonest. It is glaringly-apparent now that you’re just not that bright. Otherwise, you would be able to differentiate between a doctrine and a discipline – and you apparently can’t.

It’s also apparent that NO amount of explaining will suffice because you don’t have the capacity to understand. In short – it’s just too complicated for you. For those who CAN – here it is in a nutshell:

A) The topic here is NOT marriage and divorce.
B) The topic here is NOT mortal sin.
C) The topic here is allowing or withholding the Eucharist – which is a matter of discipline.

YOU muddied the water by trying to insist that it was about A and B – when it is really about C. Mortal sin and the punishment for it are SEPARATE issues.

This debate was over PAGES ago – but YOU couldn’t grasp that.

 

[GodsGrace]

First of all – I should probably apologize for stating that your posts were completely dishonest. It is glaringly-apparent now that you’re just not that bright. Otherwise, you would be able to differentiate between a doctrine and a discipline – and you apparently can’t.

It’s also apparent that NO amount of explaining will suffice because you don’t have the capacity to understand. In short – it’s just too complicated for you. For those who CAN – here it is in a nutshell:

A) The topic here is NOT marriage and divorce.
B) The topic here is NOT mortal sin.
C) The topic here is allowing or withholding the Eucharist – which is a matter of discipline.

YOU muddied the water by trying to insist that it was about A and B – when it is really about C. Mortal sin and the punishment for it are SEPARATE issues.

This debate was over PAGES ago – but YOU couldn’t grasp that.

This debate, as you call it...I instead think of it as YOU calling me names...
but that matters not since it's all you know how to do.

The DEBATE is about whether or not POPE FRANCIS has changed a DOGMA and/or DOCTRINE.

Now, if YOU believe that giving COMMUNION to persons in MORTAL SIN (as per the catholic church) then you are sadly mistaken.

I post documents...
YOU post insults.

YOU challenged ME to an intelligent conversation.
So, ON MY SIDE, the conversation is intelligent...
ON YOUR SIDE,,,it leaves doubt since you don't even KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEBATING.

I am NOT DEBATING:

1. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
2. MORTAL SIN
3. THE WITHHOLDING OF THE EUCHARIST FROM CERTAIN PERSONS.

Please get your facts straight....

Did Pope Francis change DOGMA/ DOCTRINE in his Amoris Laetitia?

Here is chapter 8 again with the famous footnote THAT SAYS HE DID.


Since the CC has always taught that those in MORTAL SIN CANNOT receive communion...
,,,it's up to you to prove HE DID NOT.

This is very long and I apologize to the thread...
However, as has been proven by the outrage caused by the following change to dogma/doctrine,
I'm posting the entire chapter with footnote 351.


POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION AMORIS LÆTITIA OF THE HOLY FATHER FRANCIS TO BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS CONSECRATED PERSONS CHRISTIAN MARRIED COUPLES AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON LOVE IN THE FAMILY


CHAPTER EIGHT ACCOMPANYING, DISCERNING AND INTEGRATING WEAKNESS


291. The Synod Fathers stated that, although the Church realizes that any breach of the marriage bond “is against the will of God”, she is also “conscious of the frailty of many of her children”.311 Illumined by the gaze of Jesus Christ, “she turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner, recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another in love and to be of service to the community in which they live and work”.312 This approach is also confirmed by our celebration of this Jubilee Year devoted to mercy. Although she constantly holds up the call to perfection and asks for a fuller response to God, “the Church must accompany with attention and care the weakest of her children, who show signs of a wounded and troubled love, by restoring in them hope and confidence, like the beacon of a lighthouse in a port or a torch carried among the people to enlighten those who have lost their way or who are 311 Relatio Synodi 2014, 24. 312 Ibid. 25. 222 in the midst of a storm”.313 Let us not forget that the Church’s task is often like that of a field hospital. 292. Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and are consecrated by the sacrament, which grants them the grace to become a domestic church and a leaven of new life for society.


page 1 of 4