POPE FRANCIS FOR YEAR OF MERCY GRANTS THAT SSPX PRIESTS CAN VALIDLY ABSOLVE!

WDTPRS ^ | September 1, 2015 | Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

Do not make the thread about another member.

[Grateful2God]

Lol! Dummy me, half-sleep when making the last pot, put it back empty... At least I did manage to find the empty one- my 1/3 cup measure was in there - I think by now I'm programmed! Am enjoying a cup as we write! Have a blessed day!

PS: have MD appointment. At least I know I'll go to the right place!

Have Joe, can travel! 🏥....🚐💨......😀☕

[Elsie]

Generally I call Anglicans Anglicans.

Sigh...

Why does ROME consider old A's different than today's A's???

[Elsie]

Do you disagree with what I stated his intentions were?

The text either stands on it's own or it doesn't.

” . . . there are many other things which most justly keep me in her (the Catholic Church’s) bosom . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. (Against the Epistle of Manchaeus Called Fundamental [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.]

http://www.gnosis.org/library/contfe.htm

---

When; in the timeline of things; was this quote located as compared to the first ones I posted?

[Elsie]

These folks await your deft touch...

Basil, Bede, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Origen, Hilary

[rwa265]

When; in the timeline of things; was this quote located as compared to the first ones I posted?

---

ST.AUGUSTIN:

AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.
[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.]
A.D. 397.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/contfe.htm

[rwa265]

These folks await your deft touch...

Basil, Bede, Cassiodorus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Origen, Hilary

---

To be honest, it does not really concern me whether Peter is called Rock, or little rock, or pebble, or whatever else. I believe what the Church has always taught, that Christ is the only TRUE Rock. Compared to Christ, Peter, like the rest of us, is not even a grain of sand.

My point is that whatever name Augustine called Peter, it is undisputed that Augustine believed that Jesus appointed Peter to be the first leader of His Church.

Somebody named Mark Bonocore wrote: It is true that some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18. However, all of these same Church fathers also speak of Peter himself as the Rock. This was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a “both-and” proposition.

I’ll leave to you whether you want to try to disprove that statement. I got the statement from the following:

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.php

[vladimir998]

“Why does ROME consider old A’s different than today’s A’s???”

Who is responsible for an action - the person who commits it or his descendants 13 generations later?

[NYer]

If an unknown number of professed Catholics are actually excommunicated due to unconfessed "mortal" sin (hint: all sin is "mortal"), then how big is True Catholicism?

First of all, your "hint" that all sin is mortal is erroneous. Matt. 5:19

Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Our Lord here teaches that there are “least commandments” a person can break and even teach others to do so yet still remain “in the kingdom of heaven.” That is both a good definition of venial sin and perfectly in line with paragraph 1863 of the Catechism. Then, Jesus goes on to warn us in no uncertain terms that there are other sins that will take us to hell—if we do not repent, of course.

In Matt. 5: 22, Jesus says, “… whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.” In verses 28-29, he says:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Getting the popcorn placemarker

[Springfield Reformer]

Clearly Jesus teaches there are some sins that will separate us from God for all eternity and some that will not–mortal and venial sin.

If that is correct (and it is not), then James is in contradiction to Jesus, here:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(James 2:10-11)

The point here is very clear.  While some sins may have a greater or lesser effect on those around you, all sin is rebellion against God, and that is what makes it indistinguishable from other violations of the law.  You see in the passage that James says the violator of one law is guilty of all.  

Which leads to a legitimate question.  In the passage on Jesus' teaching on the kingdom, does Jesus in fact talk about "least sins?"  No he does not.  Look again at the language:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:19)

So there were great commandments, and there were lesser commandments.  The greatest commandment, to love God, and next to it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  And what are these "least commandments?" Perhaps such things as these:

• If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 
• When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 
• Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

      From Deuteronomy 22:6-9

The bird situation is particularly interesting. It's not likely to come up very often.  But when it does, apparently God takes it quite seriously, "that thou mayest prolong thy days."  Yet it would be very easy to be dismissive of such fine points of the law. But what does James say?  In effect, if you break the law in one point, you've broken the whole thing.  

But how can that be?  Because the whole sense of the law is about the love of God and the love of each other.  If you break the law at any point, you have rejected the supreme law of love, you have rejected the will of God and made your own will into a god.  Every act of willful sin is idolatry of self, the antithesis of love.  They are all so intertwined in this way it is impossible to think that any of them do not merit the full penalty of sin:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 6:23)

Read the text.  What does it say?  Does it say "the wages of mortal sin is death?"  No, it does not.  Sin causes death. Period.  Therefore, sin is mortal by definition.  

Then how is it, someone might ask, that the breakers of "least commandments" are themselves spoken of as "least" in the kingdom?  A fair question.  How does one enter the kingdom?  What does Jesus say?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(John 3:3)

Paul is very clear there will be those who are saved, but whose works will perish in the testing fire, wood, hay, stubble.  They will still be forgiven of all their sins, because that accounting was done at the cross.  But they will truly be least in the kingdom.  

So you see, it isn't that there are two categories of sin with radically different consequences.  That is an invention of the sinful human mind.  Some sin does more harm than others, and perhaps deserves a greater quantity of punishment, but not a different kind of punishment.  The wages of sin is death.  

Unjustified anger. A single lustful thought. Any act that falls sort of the divine love of God.  That, of course, is why we need grace.  No one can live to that standard.  If we would be justified before God, we must not rely on avoiding the "really bad" sins, as if that will save us.  It will not.  Only faith in the crucified and risen Christ can possibly save us.  We must be that man in the back row, who cries out to God, have mercy on me a sinner.  

Peace,

SR

[ebb tide]

Who is responsible for an action - the person who commits it or his descendants 13 generations later?

What about Original Sin? Do you deny you were born with it? The sin of Adam of Eve were quite a few generations ago. Are you responsible for their actions?

[ebb tide]

In need of confession, yes, but not necessarily in stark want of a confessor if they are living in normal circumstances.

What's "normal circumstances"?

[vladimir998]

“What about Original Sin?”

I actually knew YOU (not under the name Elsie) would bring that up. Notice I said “Who is responsible for an action - the person who commits it or his descendants 13 generations later?”

None of us are responsible for Original Sin. See CCC 404-405.

“Do you deny you were born with it?”

Nope. CCC 404-405.

“The sin of Adam of Eve were quite a few generations ago. Are you responsible for their actions?”

Nope. We are not Adam and Eve. And, hence, we call Anglicans Anglicans today.

[vladimir998]

“What’s “normal circumstances”?”

Circumstances not covered by Canon 844 § 2.

[Elsie]

Thanks for admitting you don’t know

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

And, hence, we call Anglicans Anglicans today.

Still don't know the genetic makeup of the FIRST A's vs the CURRENT A's; eh?