You're just HATEFUL!
Posted on 06/21/2013 4:07:10 AM PDT by markomalley
When you look around society today, it doesn’t look good.
Even in the Church, people are committing abortion and contraception.
They are sleeping together outside of marriage, using porn, and doing a host of other things that can endanger their souls.
It can be tempting to conclude that most Catholics in America today are going to go to hell.
Is the situation that bleak?
A Question from a Reader
A reader writes:
I belong to a great parish, full of wonderful people who love God and neighbor.
However, I can't help but be aware that at least from an objective viewpoint, most of them seem to be in a state of mortal sin per the Church's teaching.
The most common one is the use of contraception, but there are plenty of others, including cohabitation prior to marriage, remarriage outside the Church, etc.
The Church views all these things as mortal sins, although it's clear these people don't view them that way.
Our society at this moment makes it really difficult for people, especially young people, to do what the Church expects.
I also know that most of these people genuinely and sincerely do not believe they are sinning. They continue to pray, to attend Mass, and have faith in Christ, which indicates to me that they don't desire to cut themselves off from God.
Is it truly likely that the vast majority of American Catholics will end up in hell?
What can we say here?
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?... And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?... Do you not know that we shall judge angels?... How much more, things that pertain to this life?.. If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge ? (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).
Many commands of God require the exercise of righteous judgment.
“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
“And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15).
“Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wrangling of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself” (2 Timothy 6:2b-5).
“Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:17,18).
All these commands require the careful exercise of righteousness judgment. Do not be deceived by smooth words and flattering speech. Beware of wolves who come to you with a sheep’s skin.
We must be careful not to make unqualified judgments. But we must judge appropriately when commanded to do so.
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24).
So TRUE!!!
But...
...what if someone does NOT see a NEED for this gift?
Hell?
What's that?
Where's that?
I ain't going there, so I don't need your gift.
(Sorry tagline; but that's how it is...)
Accuratelly phrased.
Then there is that pesky Book we've heard so much about.
I can’t speak for the poster you quoted but I am going to guess that what he/she meant was that the question of the OP can only be answered by God. Having said that, I think I see what you are implying...that, although God makes the final call through his mercy, we have a responsibility to fraternally correct those who are heading down the wrong path.
You're just HATEFUL!
Oh?
We are currently under G-d's judgement...Obama is part of that judgement, and is a reflection of our corrupt people.
This is WAY too simple.
Let me help you learn the rituals needed...
Yet another FAlse Prophet!
Possibly; but what if they fail realize what that plan IS?
And just WHO is to JUDGE someone is on the WRONG path??
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your post. You seem to asking a question that I have already answered.
Perhaps something like that. But it's easier to just hold on to the fuzzy infallibles...for that also green-lights one to then go a-storming after those who point out some of the evidential, inherent problems with that position.
"Fuzzy" whacks two birds with one stone...maybe more. Clinging to not having to think any more carefully then they may have, the "protectors" can justify to themselves and one another almost ANY attack launched towards critics of any sort rather indiscriminately, using whatever sticks be 'handy'.
The feedback loop has approached near perfection for more than a few. We encounter that sort of thing here daily, no?
Yet within Catholicism is some measure of dissent, which is both well informed, and has been subjected to fairly strict self-restraint. As has been the case down through the centuries...such voices are frequently (but not always?) shunted aside. I do get the impression that more than a few prefer a top-down dictat model, even as in other instance a 'from the bottom up' expression of "faith" is preferred---if those in lower echelon can sway the 'dictat' level into canonizing & furthering the highly questionable.
From CURRENT THEOLOGY - Theological Studies A.R. Jonson, beginning here at p. 97
The Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) in collaboration with the Canon Law Society of America issued a thorough analysis of the new profession and oath which charges that they contain an un-traditional extension of magisterial authority. The first paragraph of the profession repeats the formulation of Vatican I and specifies the assent of faith to what is infallibly taught concerning God's revelation. The second paragraph appears to specify a new form of assent to church teaching and deliberately expands the grey zone between what is infallibly taught and what is authentic but reformable doctrine.Infallible teaching requires the assent of faith;whereas authoritative but reformable teaching calls for interior assent, namely, the "religious submission of the will and intellect."From page 98
Different traditional interpretations about these "secondary" objects of infallibility exist among Catholic theologians. Some hold that the category includes only what is strictly required to safeguard the deposit of faith; others include what is connected with it; others would include the entire natural law. "There are some, for example, who would subsume the teaching of artificial birth control under what is 'definitively' proposed Each of these positions has its advocates, and each interpretation would provide a very different rubric by which this paragraph would be understood and applied."From page 100The new profession extends the object of this assent to include teaching of the magisterium that is deemed necessary support for the matters definitively taught as well as any decision that is made to terminate further debate on a subject. This would appear to go considerably beyond the express intent of Lumen gentium no. 25 and Canon 749, which limit "definitive" teaching to what has been infallibly declared. The CTSA report warns that Vatican I and II refrained from teaching this doctrine, at least explicitly. "Such an act by those making this profession entails a commitment which the Church itself has never taught in a definitive manner".
No consultation with the bishops of the world preceded the formulating and mandating of this new profession of faith. The bishops did not request this extension of authority, which, in the report's view, is not warranted by the New Testament, the Second Vatican Council, or tradition. The report sums up its evaluation:
The novel insistence that theologians hold "an office" that they "speak in the name of the Church, "and that they must be "mandated" or "missioned" by the hierarchy to teach, is read by many theologians both as a theological misinterpretation of the nature of theological work and as another tendency toward excessive centralization and inhibiting control within the Church.
This is the form of assent ("to accept firmly and hold") which is ambiguously asserted in the 1989 Profession of Faith. Orsy found it puzzling to say that anything in the realm of falliblility could be proposed as definitive. In addition, if the appropriate response ("to accept firmly and hold") is not an act of faith (which is made to the first category of truths), what does this novel phrase mean? Neither the Second Vatican Council nor the canons of the 1983 Code use such language. 16 Francis A.Sullivan pointed out in this journal that following Lumen gentium no.25 most theologians who do "admit a secondary object of infallibility limit it to what is strictly required in order for the magisterium to defend or explain some revealed truth." The CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith] Instruction extends the range of this secondary object of infallibility to truths that are "intimately connected" with revelation, not merely those that are necessarily required for its defense.
Matthew 7:1, John 8:7
Of course ... and that goes w/o saying. But the question was why don’t priests talk about what the church teaches about abortion and contraception.
They should. We need to be active in our faith, not passive.
Ok; I get it. You are afraid to judge.
Most people have been cowed into this position.
It goes without READING!
Just LOOK at the responses to SCRIPTURE that I've post in this thread!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.