You see…..I’m not a huge fan of this precisely because I think the danger of this is precisely what the post is aimed that, that creating tiers of sinning leads to spiritual complacency. I suppose in a pastoral sense it makes some kind of sense but then the Spirit says “Well, sin is sin and the penalty is death whether you are a gossiper or a mass murderer” like I said I do get it I just am not sure how helpful it always is.
I see the line being drawn somewhere around intent ie that venial sin is sin we cannot largely help but commit due to our fallen natures and mortal being more intentional, ie, knowing something is wrong and doing it in any case. We then get into discussions around original sin because I don’t view it as a genetic inheritance like say I have ADHD because my mother has it. It’s a whole conversation but I’m not sold on the idea of drawing a line here.
I told the traitor Welby his staff was broken long before the Lord tossed him to the wolves and I told my ex that which the locust was eaten would be restored long before she was with child , the Spirit has no visible living Church to speak through as you know for yourself for you say the seat is vacant, do not be surprised if it speaks through other means
And no God does not stop speaking just because Rome has abandoned its duty, do you imagine God has nothing to say of our wickedness? About His Church which breaks His Heart? About AI? Euthanasia? If you think He has nothing to say about that I would submit to you that you are pushing functional deism
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (5.16-17)
As for your other comments about AI, sedevacantism, euthanasia etc, Darrell, I don't see what they have to do with the matter at hand, which is that the Church teaches the reality of venial sin, and it is our part to accept it.
It is not for the Church to prove that each individual teaching is, as you put it, in keeping with the Holy Spirit. That isn't how this works. One does not become a Catholic without being assured of her authority and accepting it; as such her teachings are subject to the benefit of the doubt and call for our assent, are are not subject to our private satisfaction as to their consistency with our own view of the Holy Spirit.
We accept the entirety of the Church's revelation with faith. On the authority of God who has revelaed it to the Apostles and his Church; or we pick and choose what we want to believe based on private examination and opinion, and then we do not have the divine and supernatural faith necessary to please God, but rather human opinion. Our opinions and whether we see the intrinsic truth of arguments for this or that doctrine are not relevant. The Catholic Church is not like the Protestant groups.
The problems of the contemporary age, of which a vacant see is the diagnosis (and which remain problems whether or not that diagnosis is accepted) are about other issues; and it is faith itself, and the principles of non-contradiction which compels us to draw this diagnosis. It is also not like concluding that the See is occupied makes this problem go away: what is left, rather, is a bowdlerisation of Catholic theology and doctrine, in which (as I said abovr) everything is subject to our own private inquiry as to its intrinsic truth and consistency.
The principle of non-contradiction is what prohibits us from accepting that which is contrary to what we have already received from God through his Church; not our own verification of the principle of consistency between prior and present teaching.
However, with regard to something like venial sin, we are talking here about settled Catholic doctrine, and the same points apply to all of settled Catholic doctrine. We know with certainty that the Catholic Church is his church. We are in the Church to learn and to assent to the revelation of God. We ourselves, our opinions, our experiences, our needs, our desires, our idealism, our feelings, the inconvenience of certain doctrines or conclusions, and what we can see of the intrinsic truth of this or that doctrine – none of these are the measuring stick.
I'm afraid that your RCIA in a Novus Ordo church is unlikely to help you in this respect; in fact, it is likely to lead to more of the same thing.
Is it not written by St Paul that the wages of sin are death? Does he make a distinction? I don’t see one. I think the problem is this - St John is referring to the Mosaic Covenant where there were crimes that transgressed the law which were not capital crimes. He was not talking in a spiritual sense because spiritually speaking all sin leads to death. If it didn’t then we wouldn’t need to make reparation for all sins.
You make a long exposition about the faith but that is not the point - Sedevanctism can’t care for the flock because you don’t have anything to say about the challenges the flock face like AI because you don’t have a living Magisterium.
Criticising Rome isn’t all making disciples is about.
Darrell, the point about faith and our relation to the Church's teaching and proposition of revelation is precisely the point - or rather, even more fundamental than anything else being discussed. Without that being in order, you might be received into the Church externally, but you will lack supernatural faith without which it is impossible to please God.
And you are basically slipping into deist heresy saying that the See of Peter has to be occupied for God to be active in the world, thinking and feeling and speaking, do you see how your doctrine reduces the Most High to an appendage of the Papacy? You have your perspective the wrong way around - God does not need the See of Peter to be occupied to act and speak and think and feel and tend His flock - the See of Peter needs God.
I have more than enough supernatural faith and if you cannot see that you are spiritually blind and should not really address me with the Adversary’s pride.
One of the massive problems for Sedevanctism is no valid Pope means no valid Magisterium and you can’t just look to Tradition because how does Tradition answer AI? For that you need a living Magisterium present in the here and now in time and like I said you end up with deism, saying God doesn’t speak anymore, has nothing to say to His people, now is this true?
The extreme harm and inconvenience that would be caused by the temporary vacancy of the Holy See does not mean that it is in fact occupied by the heresiarchs in Rome.
We are being chastised. Just as Christ remained silent in his Passion, and appeared disfigured, so too the Church is without her definitively authoritative voice for a time. And this is a punishment for the sins of the world, I believe.
The last paragraph is incorrect and not consistent with the character of Christ as revealed in Scripture as leaving a flock rudderless is not consistent with being a good shepherd is it especially when a storm is brewing? This is the danger - that you are preserving tradition as a fossil without the leaven of Heavens Grace which basically leads you to assaults the merciful character of Our Lord.
We still have the Good Shepherd. And those who wish to have faith hear his voice, and continue to be saved. And no, I do not limit that to those who agree the see is vacant. But I do limit it to those who have faith. Outside the Catholic Church, and without divine faith in the sense taught by her, there is no salvation.
Those who want both to be saved and the means to be saved, will be saved.
You see…..I’m not a huge fan of this precisely because I think the danger of this is precisely what the post is aimed that, that creating tiers of sinning leads to spiritual complacency. I suppose in a pastoral sense it makes some kind of sense but then the Spirit says “Well, sin is sin and the penalty is death whether you are a gossiper or a mass murderer” like I said I do get it I just am not sure how helpful it always is.
I see the line being drawn somewhere around intent ie that venial sin is sin we cannot largely help but commit due to our fallen natures and mortal being more intentional, ie, knowing something is wrong and doing it in any case. We then get into discussions around original sin because I don’t view it as a genetic inheritance like say I have ADHD because my mother has it. It’s a whole conversation but I’m not sold on the idea of drawing a line here.
This is the teaching of the Church, and of Holy Scripture. It’s for us to submit our likes and dislikes and opinions to the Church.
If that teaching is consistent with the views of the Holy Spirit yes but can you prove it is
I told the traitor Welby his staff was broken long before the Lord tossed him to the wolves and I told my ex that which the locust was eaten would be restored long before she was with child , the Spirit has no visible living Church to speak through as you know for yourself for you say the seat is vacant, do not be surprised if it speaks through other means
And no God does not stop speaking just because Rome has abandoned its duty, do you imagine God has nothing to say of our wickedness? About His Church which breaks His Heart? About AI? Euthanasia? If you think He has nothing to say about that I would submit to you that you are pushing functional deism
1 John:
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (5.16-17)
As for your other comments about AI, sedevacantism, euthanasia etc, Darrell, I don't see what they have to do with the matter at hand, which is that the Church teaches the reality of venial sin, and it is our part to accept it.
It is not for the Church to prove that each individual teaching is, as you put it, in keeping with the Holy Spirit. That isn't how this works. One does not become a Catholic without being assured of her authority and accepting it; as such her teachings are subject to the benefit of the doubt and call for our assent, are are not subject to our private satisfaction as to their consistency with our own view of the Holy Spirit.
We accept the entirety of the Church's revelation with faith. On the authority of God who has revelaed it to the Apostles and his Church; or we pick and choose what we want to believe based on private examination and opinion, and then we do not have the divine and supernatural faith necessary to please God, but rather human opinion. Our opinions and whether we see the intrinsic truth of arguments for this or that doctrine are not relevant. The Catholic Church is not like the Protestant groups.
The problems of the contemporary age, of which a vacant see is the diagnosis (and which remain problems whether or not that diagnosis is accepted) are about other issues; and it is faith itself, and the principles of non-contradiction which compels us to draw this diagnosis. It is also not like concluding that the See is occupied makes this problem go away: what is left, rather, is a bowdlerisation of Catholic theology and doctrine, in which (as I said abovr) everything is subject to our own private inquiry as to its intrinsic truth and consistency.
The principle of non-contradiction is what prohibits us from accepting that which is contrary to what we have already received from God through his Church; not our own verification of the principle of consistency between prior and present teaching.
However, with regard to something like venial sin, we are talking here about settled Catholic doctrine, and the same points apply to all of settled Catholic doctrine. We know with certainty that the Catholic Church is his church. We are in the Church to learn and to assent to the revelation of God. We ourselves, our opinions, our experiences, our needs, our desires, our idealism, our feelings, the inconvenience of certain doctrines or conclusions, and what we can see of the intrinsic truth of this or that doctrine – none of these are the measuring stick.
I'm afraid that your RCIA in a Novus Ordo church is unlikely to help you in this respect; in fact, it is likely to lead to more of the same thing.
Is it not written by St Paul that the wages of sin are death? Does he make a distinction? I don’t see one. I think the problem is this - St John is referring to the Mosaic Covenant where there were crimes that transgressed the law which were not capital crimes. He was not talking in a spiritual sense because spiritually speaking all sin leads to death. If it didn’t then we wouldn’t need to make reparation for all sins.
You make a long exposition about the faith but that is not the point - Sedevanctism can’t care for the flock because you don’t have anything to say about the challenges the flock face like AI because you don’t have a living Magisterium.
Criticising Rome isn’t all making disciples is about.
Darrell, the point about faith and our relation to the Church's teaching and proposition of revelation is precisely the point - or rather, even more fundamental than anything else being discussed. Without that being in order, you might be received into the Church externally, but you will lack supernatural faith without which it is impossible to please God.
And you are basically slipping into deist heresy saying that the See of Peter has to be occupied for God to be active in the world, thinking and feeling and speaking, do you see how your doctrine reduces the Most High to an appendage of the Papacy? You have your perspective the wrong way around - God does not need the See of Peter to be occupied to act and speak and think and feel and tend His flock - the See of Peter needs God.
I have more than enough supernatural faith and if you cannot see that you are spiritually blind and should not really address me with the Adversary’s pride.
One of the massive problems for Sedevanctism is no valid Pope means no valid Magisterium and you can’t just look to Tradition because how does Tradition answer AI? For that you need a living Magisterium present in the here and now in time and like I said you end up with deism, saying God doesn’t speak anymore, has nothing to say to His people, now is this true?
The extreme harm and inconvenience that would be caused by the temporary vacancy of the Holy See does not mean that it is in fact occupied by the heresiarchs in Rome.
We are being chastised. Just as Christ remained silent in his Passion, and appeared disfigured, so too the Church is without her definitively authoritative voice for a time. And this is a punishment for the sins of the world, I believe.
The last paragraph is incorrect and not consistent with the character of Christ as revealed in Scripture as leaving a flock rudderless is not consistent with being a good shepherd is it especially when a storm is brewing? This is the danger - that you are preserving tradition as a fossil without the leaven of Heavens Grace which basically leads you to assaults the merciful character of Our Lord.
We still have the Good Shepherd. And those who wish to have faith hear his voice, and continue to be saved. And no, I do not limit that to those who agree the see is vacant. But I do limit it to those who have faith. Outside the Catholic Church, and without divine faith in the sense taught by her, there is no salvation.
Those who want both to be saved and the means to be saved, will be saved.
You’ve just called Him a bad shepherd because according to you He is chastising the sheep and leaving them bereft when they most need Him.
So you admit that since there is no living Magesterium we must rely on the internal voice of the Spirit so you agree with me.