I suggest the sin is in brazen disobedience to an imposed Church law and nothing to do with the specific content. So if the law (which in this case is changeable because there is no intrinsic sin in eating meat on any particular religious day) changes (eg we are allowed to choose another form of penance) its no longer grave matter. Presumably it is still a mortal sin to brazenly choose to do no penance on Good Friday as still required.
Who here could disagree. Yet, objectively, this holy woman was in a state of mortal sin for doing so. CCC 2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. the faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God's holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So why can we not agree it is quite possible for someone to be in a state of objective mortal sin - yet be very holy and not cause scandal at the same time .
'So why can we not agree it is quite possible for someone to be in a state of objective mortal sin - yet be very holy and not cause scandal at the same time '
, That didn't last long Padraig. Lets allow our vocal, but possibly narrow points, of view to be held up to the light of day by discussion of the contradictions involved. That is afterall the real point of the Pope and his Synod. Is this heresy?
I am sorry, Blue , I have been very patient. I have a duty of care to my Sisters and brothers in Christ here, I can't have yo0u pumping out poison like this here. Would you not be happier on a Cardinal Kasper type, ultra modern, ultra progressive, ultra liberal type forum? They'd love you there. But anyway Blue you are on the verge of being kicked off.
Thanks for the warning this time Padraig. May I kindly observe I have rarely taken a position at all on these matters since you allowed me to return. Yes I do sincerely question people's aired certainties at times because I see contradictions that would be good to tease out and discuss. On "liberal" forums I am attacked as "conservative", here (where the most vocal contributors are "conservative") you have just labelled me as ultra liberal. People here seem shocked to have their views politely challenged. When I try to inject a little humour into things people see this as doubly evil it seems. So I do find it a bit confusing when all manner of disrespect to Pope Francis and Cardinals is tolerated here, yet my ill-advised attempts to have people explain seeming contradictions in their views is jumped on quickly. I see a "forum" as a place where people not only share their views with like-minded persons...but are also prepared to have them politely discussed when others find them possibly narrow or controversial. Is this not a form of apologetics to one another - as Scripture says, sharing the reasons we believe what we do? In doing so we may find we don't know it all. Keeping it real. If this mutual-critiquing of views thing is not that sort of forum you want to run Padraig then I think you need to be clear on this. Otherwise I fear I will just keep on upsetting you and others unintentionally, which certainly isn't my intention. I believe I have given no worse than I have first received, and have attempted to do so in good humour. I am able to be made a butt of by others without getting upset. Nevertheless if I have offended anyone by humorously throwing back what I have received then I apologise. So I will desist on this topic - though I am somewhat confused as to the red-line I may have crossed. I must have a blind spot here that needs a lot of re-tuning.
A very interesting thread. A good few years ago we were told an alternative fast or penance was allowed instead of abstaining from meat on Fridays. But we just carried on abstaining from meat on Fridays. There was no order to Eat Meat Fridays. LOL When UK Bishops sent out an advisory to return to tradition of abstaining from eating meat on Fridays; we never even noticed the change. LOL The other topic mentioned in this thread I would like to share a view on is the heartbreak problem of broken marriages. I don't know anyone who is; Catholic/divorced/remarried personally. I know of some by acquaintance. But I did know people not of our faith who were divorced or in the process of broken marriages. And the one thing I found in those people which must affect Catholics the same and is not mentioned in this thread, is the utter sense of failure people feel when this happens in their marriage. Men and women alike. Of course I am not thinking of the partner who may have destroyed their marriage by infidelity. I would not expect them to be concerned about what God might think anyway. But how many married people I have known who were cheated on and deserted. These people have been betrayed by their partner left with a sense of failure; and I am glad Holy Father is not in favour of betraying them again, when it happens to a practicing Catholic. I have always believed if a partner was violent, abusive or alcoholic, the Church did permit the marriage to be annulled. I have heard that very unreasonable intimate behaviour would allow an annulment, like bestiality for example. I understand that the process for annulment is very slow, and I think this Holy Father wants the process to be speeded up. I think that would be a first step in dealing with the backlog of unhappy couples out there and many couples could be in full Communion with the Church once the 'red tape' of annulment was completed. Or so I think.
My current record, Blue for getting my ass kicked off was several seconds and one post on a Satnist forum were I joined to evangelise. My one and only post was, 'God bless all here'. and my ass was toast. I don't think , with respect even you will ever trump this, a record of which I am quite proud.
He He He, Padraig, I think you meant to click BH not me. But congratulations on your record breaking expulsion from the ones in darkness. Is it true that the women are worse than the men. They went down to hell and were kicked out again. You beat the record there. LOL
Abuse and infidelity are not grounds for annulment. It all depends on what conditions were at the time of the wedding. If the abuse or infidelity came later, it would not affect the validity of the marriage.
Heidi, maybe we have hit on a topic that will come up for consideration at the Synod. Surely if a person is cheated on, this is a serious sin against the 6th, as well as the 9th Commandment. I am not very good a finding quotes from the Bible; but I am sure there is mention there of how when a partner destroys their marriage by adultery. They incur the guilt for their partner also who may seek someone else later. I may be wrong. Surely if a husband physically abuses his wife, he is not following God's instruction to love her as much as he loves himself. Or are there men who like to beat themselves up out of love for themselves. Of course there are women who physically abuse their husbands too. It seems we all need to re examine and learn the old penny catechism. So many problems arise from a lack of learning the Faith of our fathers.
Oh yea, sorry, sorry, sorry. And three sorry's on the top. Should have said BH. Fixed it now. You can see why I am scared of trying to quote from anything or anywhere.. Bound to get it wrong.
Heidi I believe the grounds most commonly called upon (in Marriage Tribunals) to deny validity is either immaturity or lack of sufficient judgement to enter marriage, as provisioned in Canon 1095.2: "They are incapable of contracting marriage who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted. " So abuse or infidelity could be evidence of either a lack of maturity, and infidelity could additionally (more likely in young males) be evidence of a lack of understanding of the essential duties required of a Catholic marriage. It seems that such evidence need not manifest at the actual time of the marriage but would of course be harder to prove immaturity or ignorance in that case.
