Posted on 05/07/2015 7:08:16 AM PDT by Gamecock
We will agree to disagree, but the picture you posted is indicative of scandal, failure to obey canon law (915), latae sententiae excommunication, and self-condemnation.
If you are referring to post 68, the answer you gave is not the “official” answer, but the information from NewAdvent.org is accurate. In other words, it doesn’t contain sufficient context to stand on its own for teaching, but it doesn’t contain error. The best source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, found free, online, at both the Vatican website (vatican.va) and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB.org).
I would suggest it is a matter of interpretation on two fronts. The first is the actual interpretation of the texts and their meaning, and the second is the use of the KJV.
As I mentioned previously, the best source for teaching on the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, starting at 1422 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm0). There are more Scriptural references that I provided.
Second, I challenge the assumption that there is something deficient in exegesis. In some respects, the Bible is very clear, specific, and practical, such as “Love thy neighbor...” In other occasions, it provides examples for how not to behavior in any number of situations not found in the Bible explicitly (SWATing, revenge porn, cyberbullying).
Additionally, the Bible doesn’t necessarily contain standards on Church construction, details or norms of liturgical structures, altar calls, and any number of legitimate expressions of faith.
Finally, nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say, “Do only what is exactly in the Bible.” To suggest it does is exegesis.
In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power.
You'll see from this that anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in such a sorry state does have recourse now even before the specially sanctioned priests Francis has in mind are sent out.
There are already such priests available now, in other words, Francis' plan is to just make them more readily available.
What about the priest/bishop who administers the communion?
What’s inaccurate? Does a priest/bishop have the power to absolve sins or not?
He seems to be doing a fine job of it himself.
So 'revenge porn' is not covered by lust, fornication and adultery in the Bible? Cyberbullying is not covered by love thy neighbor? You need another document to lay that out for you?
Additionally, the Bible doesn’t necessarily contain standards on Church construction, details or norms of liturgical structures, altar calls, and any number of legitimate expressions of faith.
There's a good reason for why those things are not addressed in Holy Scriptures...The NT church did none of them. If such was so important some of the apostles would have mentioned it in the multiple epistles we have. Christ would have corrected the later churches in His letters to the 7 churches in Revelation. Acts 16:13 "And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled." Church construction didn't seem like a priority. They met outside the gate at a riverside.
Finally, nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say, “Do only what is exactly in the Bible.” To suggest it does is exegesis.
“It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”---Jesus Christ (Matthew 4:4)
“Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?---Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:3)
Thank you for the clarification.
The only comment is they should correct their entry of “5th Commandment” to “6th Commandment.”
I think you get my point that revenge porn and cyber bullying are not spoken of specifically in the Bible, though the principles forbidding them are. In the same way some things are not specifically written in the Bible, but the concepts apply either precisely or by inference (If somebody drops their groceries, you should “love thy neighbor” and help pick them up).
While some open spaces can accommodate crowds, it certainly isn’t pleasant in the rain, snow, or other inclement weather. If a church isn’t smart enough to literally come out of the rain, well, I am not sure I want to hear their opinion on anything else. Additionally, house churches were and are common during persecutions. The Bible doesn’t rule them out, nor demand them, but neither makes them illicit.
Certainly, the word of God is found in the Old Testament, the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Since His words don’t directly appear in other books, do they not deserve to be in the Bible?
Your quotations are important and meaningful, but they don’t necessarily support your point. I assume if I post John 6:51-56, you would not take the meaning that Jesus tells us to consume His body and Blood.
Secondly, the second quotation you give is completely out of context and meaningless to the discussion. I suggest you start at verse 1 to discover the Pharisees were busting Jesus’s chops. Jesus proceeds to call them out as hypocrites, which is a recurring theme. The Pharisees had hundreds of changing laws they put on the Jews, down to the minutest detail. Jesus’s point was to say they worried about washing hands, but didn’t care a whit about their own parents. They claim to obeying God, but really they are violating the Commandments.
One last thought on Tradition, since the Bible didn’t come with a table of contents delivered from upon high, and since many of the books of the New Testament weren’t finished until after the Ascension, the Church was left to decide what was and was not canonical. The canon of Scripture is “T” Tradition, as it was man, at the direction of the Holy Spirit, who assembled the Bible.
They are in violation of Canon 915, and by their actions give scandal.
Thanks for the clarification.
A priest and bishop (who is also a priest), by their Ordination, with rare exception, have the power to absolve sins.
Their are requirements of both priest and penitent. There is a history (think centuries ago), but not recently IIRC, of what is called a Simplex priest (sacerdous simplex). These are ordained men who may not preach, nor hear confessions. These two faculties are restrained by their superiors. Typically, it was for not doing well in the seminary.
The forgiveness of sins on Earth is and was delegated by Jesus Christ.
Quite welcome! Have a great weekend and enjoy Mother’s day. While my mother is in the arms of Jesus, I sure am glad she was my mom.
Sure it should. When a particular moral evil is justified in the eyes of civil law and secular society at large, this just when the Church should double down on it. Otherwise there's no voice out there at all that's telling the moral truth.
And it's not just a matter of “the clergy” or “the Vatican” or “Canon Law.” We all have a job to do here as teachers within our own circle. We're all guilty of the pattern of silence that allows our society (or even or own kids) to continue drifting to their own destruction.”
Something is either morally right or morally wrong. I don't think one grievous sin (abortion) needs to be singled out for forgiveness only by a bishop, but not murder. I never implied that abortion should not be condemned by the Church. I just don't see why someone who has an abortion was forced to go to a bishop only for forgiveness, but a murderer can go to a priest, when both are taking a life.
I don't believe the Church should tailor its policies to secular law. If it's a sin, it's a sin period. And the Church should speak out against it, no matter the secular laws.
I don't see a problem with this.
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.