Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ealgeone; metmom
" The point is would David and Bathsheba be allowed to join the RCC and participate in communion in light of the prior sins committed."

Oh geez, so that's it!!!

"Some of your fellow Roman Catholics would say no."

NONE of my fellow Catholics would say no. ALL of my fellow Catholics know that sins are forgiven by repentance, Confession, receiving from Jesus Christ total absolution for our sins and the strength and grace from HIM to turn away from our previous sinful way of life and overcome temptation in the future.

None of that is controversial.

"Go, and sin no more.".

Every Catholic knows that unless they are retarded or something.

The Amoris Laetitia controversy is not about whether people can repent and be absolved of sin. It is about if they can be absolved if they do NOT repent and do NOT turn away from it. AL implied, without quite saying, that for some people an adulterous union is not so bad, not a mortal sin/ It implies that they need not take the negative precept "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" all that seriously, if their adulterous "civil marriage" is kinda working out for them.

It's that old error of Situation Ethics rearing up its repulsive head again. What is this, 1966? Who does Francis think he is, Joseph Fletcher?

Glad you gave me a chance to clear that up.

As for David and Bathsheba, if they are actually unmarried, and have no "previous spouses" hanging around, and they want to get well and truly married, as in honest Christian monogamy, great. Get honestly repented and honestly wedded, that's all.

"Isn't that what all of the bru-ha is about Amoris Laetitia?"

The brouhaha about Amoris Laetitia centers on several larger questions, such as whether the negative precepts of God's law are really exceptionless norms. Does "no murder" really mean NO MURDER? Does "no adultery" mean NO ADULTERY? Same for PERJURY and APOSTASY, and SODOMY, and other serious sins?

Or do the Commandments boil down to "Thou shalt not sin... unless thou art really, really tempted."

"NO means NO" is the Catholic position. It looks like Pope Francis disagrees, although he expresses himself so ambiguously that it's hard to see if he is actually, formally trying to overturn doctrine that's been settled for millennia. It's an unprecedented situation: a Pope who hints and winks and refuses to make a clear commitment to Catholicism.

64 posted on 03/06/2018 6:14:28 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” Leo XII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o
"Some of your fellow Roman Catholics would say no."

NONE of my fellow Catholics would say no.

Respectfully suggest you read these threads more. There is a contingent, though I don't know if it represents mainstream Roman Catholic thought or not [ya'll do seem to have a whole lot of differing opinion on these topics in light of the supposed claim to be of one mind] , that disagrees with you.

65 posted on 03/06/2018 6:21:22 PM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson