|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 5:13:51 GMT -5
That's a rather obscure publication you're quoting from, but I gather the point you're making is more about transubtiation rather than forgiveness. I don't think it really authoritative on the teaching of the Church. Be that as it may, you may wish to check with something more current regarding the official teaching regarding this matter. "Obscure" Why? It seems pretty direct and plain to me.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 6:02:41 GMT -5
That's a rather obscure publication you're quoting from, but I gather the point you're making is more about transubtiation rather than forgiveness. I don't think it really authoritative on the teaching of the Church. Be that as it may, you may wish to check with something more current regarding the official teaching regarding this matter. "Obscure" Why? It seems pretty direct and plain to me. Plain, yes. Obscure, in the sense that it is not something that is readily available. I don't think I can go to my local library and look up or buy it at amazon. It's probably out of print. Whether it is accurate or is even acceptable to Catholicism is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 6:06:27 GMT -5
The whole document is available and it says the same thing. It is called Reconcillation something or the other. The headline is an accurate reflection of what the pope said. Do you have a link to your source? As I already stated, LA Times does not seem to have it available through their web site.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 6:11:39 GMT -5
Jesus was telling Peter that what he said was inspired by Satan, and what "pennance" did Peter "do"? You have taken a Roman catholic tradition of "pennance" and applied it to the bible. [/color][/quote] As is everyone who sins. But earlier you seemed to infer that Peter had an inospicious start because of it. Are not ALL of us sinners? Even the first chosen leader of the Church? I gather you do not accept the notion of "sackcloth and ashes" to repent of your sins.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 7:48:28 GMT -5
Plain, yes. Obscure, in the sense that it is not something that is readily available. I don't think I can go to my local library and look up or buy it at amazon. It's probably out of print. Whether it is accurate or is even acceptable to Catholicism is questionable. I'm sure it's available on the Roman c website or sites.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 7:52:56 GMT -5
Do you have a link to your source? As I already stated, LA Times does not seem to have it available through their web site. It's accessable on line. Here is Ch. 2CHAPTER TWO THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION 28. In all its phases and at all its levels the synod considered with the greatest attention that sacramental sign which represents and at the same time accomplishes penance and reconciliation. This sacrament in itself certainly does not contain all possible ideas of conversion and reconciliation. From the very beginning, in fact, the church has recognized and used many and varying forms of penance. Some are liturgical or paraliturgical and include the penitential actin the pkmtyolm, services of atonement and pilgrimages; others are of an ascetical character, such as fasting. But of all such acts none is more significant, more divinely efficacious or more lofty and at the same time easily accessible as a rite than the sacrament of penance. From its preparatory stage and then in the numerous interventions during the sessions, in the group meetings and in the final propositions, the synod took into account the statement frequently made with varying nuances and emphases, namely: The sacrament of penance is in crisis. The synod took note of this crisis. It recommended a more profound catechesis, but it also recommended a no less profound analysis of a theological, historical, psychological, sociological and juridical character of penance in general and of the sacrament of penance in particular. In all of this the synod's intention was to clarify the reasons for the crisis and to open the way to a positive solution for the good of humanity. Meanwhile, from the synod itself the church has received a clear confirmation of its faith regarding the sacrament which gives to every Christian and to the whole community of believers the certainty of forgiveness through the power of the redeeming blood of Christ. It is good to renew and reaffirm this faith at a moment when it might be weakening, losing something of its completeness or entering into an area of shadow and silence, threatened as it is by the negative elements of the above-mentioned crisis. For the sacrament of confession is indeed being undermined, on the one hand by the obscuring of the mortal and religious conscience, the lessening of a sense of sin, the distortion of the concept of repentance and the lack of effort to live an authentically Christian life. And on the other hand, it is being undermined by the sometimes widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God, even in a habitual way, without approaching the sacrament of reconciliation. A further negative influence is the routine of a sacramental practice sometimes lacking in fervor and real spontaneity, deriving perhaps from a mistaken and distorted idea of the effects of the sacrament. It is therefore appropriate to recall the principal aspects of this great sacrament. Pt 31 ->> 31. The truths mentioned above, powerfully and clearly confirmed by the synod and contained in the propositions, can be summarized in the following convictions of faith, to which are connected all the other affirmations of the Catholic doctrine on the sacrament of penance. Now he engages in a little "CYA"I. The first conviction is that for a Christian the sacrament of penance is the primary way of obtaining forgiveness and the remission of serious sin committed after baptism. Certainly the Savior and his salvific action are not so bound to a sacramental sign as to be unable in any period or area of the history of salvation to work outside and above the sacraments. But in the school of faith we learn that the same Savior desired and provided that the simple and precious sacraments of faith would ordinarily be the effective means through which his redemptive power pkmtyolpes and operates. It would therefore be foolish, as well as presumptuous, to wish arbitrarily to disregard the means of grace and salvation which the Lord has provided and, in the specific case, to claim to receive forgiveness while doing without the sacrament which was instituted by Christ precisely for forgiveness.[/u][/color] He says it is foolish to ask forgiveness without going to a priest. This man is the antichrist without a doubt. He is one in a long line of antichrists just as scripture describes.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 11:45:07 GMT -5
I'm sure it's available on the Roman c website or sites. I've checked my sources and have been unable to find this book online.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 11:46:48 GMT -5
It's accessable on line. Here is Ch. 2 Great...can you provide me a link to the website?
|
|
|
Post by Protestant on Jul 29, 2003 17:15:42 GMT -5
why do you claim this satanic heresy that Peter was the first chosen leader of the church when he clearly was not.
i repeat what i posted earlier .
If St. Peter was the head of the apostles, certainly the other apostles would have known it. However, they didn't! This is apparent since they argued about which of them was the "greatest," even while Jesus was still living among them!
(a) "Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest" (Lk. 9:46).
(b) "Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest" (Lk. 22:24).
Clearly, this last pkmtyolpage occurred after Jesus spoke Mt. 16:18 and in Jesus' presence! Please note that Jesus never corrected them by saying Peter was made the "head" at the point of Mt. 16:18! The other apostles never thought that verse uniquely exalted Peter above themselves, so why should we?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 30, 2003 3:35:21 GMT -5
I've checked my sources and have been unable to find this book online. It's not a book. It's a papal bull, I guess you could call it. It's a papal declaration of a hundred and some odd pages. It should be on a Rc website.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 30, 2003 4:50:32 GMT -5
It's not a book. It's a papal bull, I guess you could call it. It's a papal declaration of a hundred and some odd pages. It should be on a Rc website. Ok, so this source that you use earlier: is from a papal bull. That gives me a start to research since you won't give me your link. Now, what about the 1984 LA Times article that you've quoted from? Will you provide me a link to that article?
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 30, 2003 4:54:15 GMT -5
why do you claim this satanic heresy that Peter was the first chosen leader of the church when he clearly was not. i repeat what i posted earlier . If St. Peter was the head of the apostles, certainly the other apostles would have known it. However, they didn't! This is apparent since they argued about which of them was the "greatest," even while Jesus was still living among them! (a) "Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest" (Lk. 9:46).
(b) "Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest" (Lk. 22:24). Clearly, this last pkmtyolpage occurred after Jesus spoke Mt. 16:18 and in Jesus' presence! Please note that Jesus never corrected them by saying Peter was made the "head" at the point of Mt. 16:18! The other apostles never thought that verse uniquely exalted Peter above themselves, so why should we? I already responded to you on this on post #67. So, what is your interpretaion of the rest of Luke 22?
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 30, 2003 4:56:29 GMT -5
Ok, so this source that you use earlier: is from a papal bull. That gives me a start to research since you won't give me your link. Now, what about the 1984 LA Times article that you've quoted from? Will you provide me a link to that article? I'm confused. The "sacremenmt of reconcillation" is from a papal declaration.
As far as the other, it is from "Duties of the Priest" as the source claims. That's all I have.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 30, 2003 6:30:40 GMT -5
I'm confused. The "sacremenmt of reconcillation" is from a papal declaration.
As far as the other, it is from "Duties of the Priest" as the source claims. That's all I have. Alright, the papal bull I can look up. The "Duties of the Priest" is the 1927 article (that I thought was a book and rather obscure) you referenced I'll do another search. I see it refers to the Redemtorist Fathers. Perhaps I'll have better luck finding it there. Now in your post #84 you referenced an LA Times article from 1984. I would like to see the whole article if you wouldn't mind. My point is that you use these references as authoritative support to your case of demonizing the Catholic Church. I would just like to review your sources.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 30, 2003 6:59:10 GMT -5
[quote author=RealistState
Now in your post #84 you referenced an LA Times article from 1984. I would like to see the whole article if you wouldn't mind.
My point is that you use these references as authoritative support to your case of demonizing the Catholic Church. I would just like to review your sources.
I don't have the whole article, but I'm positive it's on the official Rc website. Use your search engine to find it. Try "Roman Catholic Church"
|
|