Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well BoL...
I haven't lost it yet...
because giving communion to one in mortal sin is going against a DOGMA,,,not even a doctrine.

And I guess I'm going to have to educate you as to HOW.

All those "docs" you posted spoke about DISCIPLINE....
but how did they SHOW THAT what Pope Francis did is a change in DICSIPLINE??
As I've stated MANY TIMES NOW....
IF it was a change in discipline...WHY ALL THE OUTRAGE?

Here's why....because he's making a change in DOGMA.

As we shall soon see
1. What is a dogma?
A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declared as binding."[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church's Magisteriumasserts that it exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging Catholics to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[2]


The Holy Scripture is not identical with divine revelation, but a part of it.[7] Scriptures were written later by apostles and evangelists, who knew Jesus. They give inerrant testimony of his teachings.[7] "Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."[8] Truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed.[9]

The Catholic position is that the content of a dogma has a divine origin. It is considered to be an expression of an objective truth that does not change.[10] The truth of God, revealed by God, does not change, as God himself does not change; "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away".[11]
source: Dogma in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

and also my post no. 139 ---- to which you never did reply.


2. How do we know the church teaching that one cannot receive communion, which is the body and blood of Christ, in mortal sin a dogma?

Basically, because this is a teaching that CANNOT CHANGE.
But let's see why...

The Catholic Church has issued a LIST of DOGMA.

We start with no. 186, 187 and 189
  1. 186The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.
  2. 187Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
  3. 188The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
  4. 189The Body and the Blood of Christ together with His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly present in the Eucharist.
We learn from the above that communion is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. He is truly present in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is sacred and the above dogma does not change and cannot change.

And more...
Nos. 192, 194, 199, 20
  1. 192When either consecrated species is divided the Whole Christ is present in each part of the species.
  2. 194The Eucharist is a true Sacrament instituted by Christ.
  3. 199The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be validly received by every baptized person in the wayfaring state, including young children.
  4. 200For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary.
The Eucharist is a true sacrament instituted by Christ.
The Eucharist can be received by every baptized person in a wayfaring state...incl children.
For the worthy reception of the Eucharist a STATE OF GRACE is necessary.

Again,,,dogma cannot change.
To receive communion one must be in a state of grace. (NOT MORTAL SIN).

What does Catholic Dogma say about marriage?
I'll only post no. 242j and 243
  1. 242Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God.
  2. 243From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
So,,,marriage is instituted by God and we've learned that nothing instituted by God can be changed.
The marriage partners are bound in a life-long community of life.
The above can be found here,,,along with about 250 other dogma of the catholic church.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2015 BY JONATHAN BYRD
A List Of The Dogmas Of The Catholic Church
Did you know that there are 255 infallibly declared dogmas of the faith? Most people are not aware of the sheer number of dogmas. In the times in which we live, were truth is under attack, it is good to remind ourselves of the truth that is inherent in the Catholic Church.


A List Of The Dogmas Of The Catholic Church
Now, if you cannot determine from the above that giving communion to a person IN MORTAL SIN....is a grave change to the dogma of the Catholic church.
then I really don't know what will convince you.
As I've tried repeatedly to explain to you...

telling a person they cannot eat before receiving communion is a discipline...
telling a person they can receive communion IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN is a CHANGE
to the DOGMA of the Catholic Church.
And the above...BoL...is why there was such an outcry in the church when Pope Francis wrote that persons remarried can receive communion.
WRONG again.

Who gets to receive Communion is NOT a matter of Dogma – but DISCIPLINE.
NOWHERE does the Church teach that this is Dogma. Again, you are conflating Mortal sin with the Eucharist. The two are Apples and Oranges.

Mortal sin IS a doctrinal matter and may be a CAUSE for not being able to receive but it is NOT on the same level as a discipline. The circumstances of Mortal sin will NEVER change – but disciplines CAN and DO change.

It has been explained to you so many times that at this point, you’re just arguing to cover your tracks because you just don’t like being wrong . . ..
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
WRONG again.

Who gets to receive Communion is NOT a matter of Dogma – but DISCIPLINE.
NOWHERE does the Church teach that this is Dogma. Again, you are conflating Mortal sin with the Eucharist. The two are Apples and Oranges.

Mortal sin IS a doctrinal matter and may be a CAUSE for not being able to receive but it is NOT on the same level as a discipline. The circumstances of Mortal sin will NEVER change – but disciplines CAN and DO change.

It has been explained to you so many times that at this point, you’re just arguing to cover your tracks because you just don’t like being wrong . . ..
Stop explaining things to someone that already knows and PROVE what you're saying.


HERE is some more proof that remarrieds being allowed to receive communion IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN is a change in DOGMA/DOCTRINE.

BTW,,,,,your above post made no sense.
AND, I'm ready to go on forever because I know I'm right.

Did you miss this?





The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (can. 915).

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.

source: PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED


I've TRIED to explain to you that there are dicsiplines WITHIN doctrine.
YOU cannot tell me or any other catholic here that permitting persons with MORTAL SIN that is CONSTANT is not a change in DOCTRINE or DOGMA.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Epostle....

I've been trying to remember to post a disclaimer.
I UNDERSTAND, believe me, the reasons WHY the Pope is doing this.

And, yes, the rules for receiving (most of them) are disciplinary.

BUT the matter of receiving with the Pope, Bishop's, Priest's blessing while IN MORTAL SIN is NOT a discipline..It is a dogma if we examine this carefully - but it's at least a doctrine.

it is going against what the church has taught from the beginning --- even Paul said not to receive unworthily and, as you must surely know, confession was developed for those that committed sins and could not receive since communion is very important in the CC and one must be in "communion" with the church to be saved.

The Pope literally tore the church in half with this idea of his.
It's interesting that Cardinal Krauss tried to soften the blow by making a pre-announcement, which also did not go over well...not many, at the time, thought the Pope would actually go through with this --- which he did. I had some foresense and knew this was coming...some of my Catholic friends that are still involved with the church still have trouble with this.

It's a complicated subject matter but I'm well prepared.
I was very active in the church when all this was happening....

I happen to agree with you, TTYTT.
I also believe the current solution is not attainable to a normal couple.
I hope you know what it is, I hate even talking about it.

The problem is a 50% divorce rate even within Christianity.
The CC is being forced to solve this problem in some way.
I'm just happy I don't have to make this decision.
The way I see it, the remarried are recovering from a damaged life, can't get an annulment, (or one is pending) want to receive, but can't under the old rules. They are not spiritual lepers, to be excluded from Communion. What ever happened to mercy? To add to the complication, what are the children seeing?
The Pope doesn't want to starve those who sincerely seek God by withholding Communion due to disciplinary rules. We are not Novaitionists. I side with the Pope.

The Church gives guidelines about mortal sin, but cannot say who is in that state. Pro-abort politicians is a different matter. And enduring a failed so called "marriage" is hell on earth.
 
Last edited:

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
The way I see it, the remarried are recovering from a damaged life, can't get an annulment, want to receive, but can't under the old rules. They are not spiritual lepers, to be excluded from Communion. What ever happened to mercy? To add to the complication, what about the children?
The Pope doesn't want to starve those who sincerely seek God by withholding Communion due to disciplinary rules. We are not Novaitionists. I side with the Pope.
So do I.
But it's NOT what the catholic church teaches.
The Pope is changing a DOCTRINE/DOGMA and NOT a discipline.

Also, the word discipline is used to mean a teaching of the church.
The church has TAUGHT from the beginning, right after Jesus died, that persons
could NOT get divorced and remarried.
I have plenty of links to this if you like.



DISCLAIMER:
MY POSTS REFLECT THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND ARE NOT MY OWN OPINION OR BELIEF.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
The way I see it, the remarried are recovering from a damaged life, can't get an annulment, want to receive, but can't under the old rules. They are not spiritual lepers, to be excluded from Communion. What ever happened to mercy? To add to the complication, what about the children?
The Pope doesn't want to starve those who sincerely seek God by withholding Communion due to disciplinary rules. We are not Novaitionists. I side with the Pope.

The Church gives guidelines about mortal sin, but cannot say who is in that state.
I don't know if you're catholic.
Did you know that catholics are not ALLOWED to have their own opinion regarding a dogma or a doctrine? They MUST agree with the catholic church...
and
these teachings CANNOT be changed because they are biblical in nature and are a DIVINE LAW.

FYI
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
I don't know if you're catholic.
Did you know that catholics are not ALLOWED to have their own opinion regarding a dogma or a doctrine? They MUST agree with the catholic church...
and
these teachings CANNOT be changed because they are biblical in nature and are a DIVINE LAW.

FYI
This does of course beg the question of whether the Bible and the Papacy are saying exactly the same thing...
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Stop explaining things to someone that already knows and PROVE what you're saying.


HERE is some more proof that remarrieds being allowed to receive communion IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN is a change in DOGMA/DOCTRINE.

BTW,,,,,your above post made no sense.
AND, I'm ready to go on forever because I know I'm right.

Did you miss this?





The Code of Canon Law establishes that "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (can. 915).

1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.

source: PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
DECLARATION

II. CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED


I've TRIED to explain to you that there are dicsiplines WITHIN doctrine.
YOU cannot tell me or any other catholic here that permitting persons with MORTAL SIN that is CONSTANT is not a change in DOCTRINE or DOGMA.
And no matter HOW many times you post the same texts over and over – you are STILL WRONG.
The texts which you are citing are not incorrect – it’s YOUR understanding of the then is in error.

AGAIN you are conflating mortal sin (doctrine) with allowing/withholding communion (discipline) because you REFUSE to lose an argument.
Well – you LOST this one as I have proven over and over citing:
- Canon Law
- Early Church Fathers
- Vatican Officials
- Pope John Paul II


This is what happens when you have Protestants like YOU trying to dictate to the Catholic Church what it teaches.
It’s been teaching the world for 2000 years without your help . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
DISCLAIMER:
MY POSTS REFLECT THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
AND ARE NOT MY OWN OPINION OR BELIEF.
Gee, ANOTHER lie . . .

YOUR posts only reflect your ignorant and perverted point of view - but the don't reflect the teachings of the Church.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
This does of course beg the question of whether the Bible and the Papacy are saying exactly the same thing...
THANK YOU!

You just got here and you understand something BoL does not seem to be able to grasp.

THE POPE CANNOT CHANGE DIVINE LAW.

Divine Law is a dogma in the Cath. ch. and it cannot be changed because GOD SAID IT.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
THANK YOU!

You just got here and you understand something BoL does not seem to be able to grasp.

THE POPE CANNOT CHANGE DIVINE LAW.

Divine Law is a dogma in the Cath. ch. and it cannot be changed because GOD SAID IT.
The point of my post was to ask whether the Papacy really does after all represent what the Bible teaches.
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
And no matter HOW many times you post the same texts over and over – you are STILL WRONG.
The texts which you are citing are not incorrect – it’s YOUR understanding of the then is in error.

AGAIN you are conflating mortal sin (doctrine) with allowing/withholding communion (discipline) because you REFUSE to lose an argument.
Well – you LOST this one as I have proven over and over citing:
- Canon Law
- Early Church Fathers
- Vatican Officials
- Pope John Paul II


This is what happens when you have Protestants like YOU trying to dictate to the Catholic Church what it teaches.
It’s been teaching the world for 2000 years without your help . . .
MORE RHETORIC.
NO PROOF.

What kind of a catholic are you anyway if you don't understand the extreme problem the pope has created.

You're like some of my friends...you can't accept the change so you claim it's a discipline.
This is pretty funny if it weren't so sad.


Let's go through your list:

Show me what you mean by:
CANON ---- I just posted a link showing by canon law that this is DOCTRINE.

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ---- YOU mentioned ECFs????
Are you aware that early church fathers were AGAINST DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE?
Do I have to educate you on that too? Please inform yourself,,,I have limited time.

VATICAN OFFICIALS ---- What about them BoL?
The liberal ones agree with Francis.
The conservative ones do not.
WHY do you suppose the conservative ones do not?
MAYBE because he would be the first pope IN HISTORY to change a DOGMA/DOCTRINE?
THIS IS UNHEARD OF.

Here's Cardinal Muller saying IT CANNOT BE CHANGED and stating that the POPE HAS MADE NO CHANGES.
LOL LOL LOL
Then WHY are remarrieds receiving communion?
WHY are priests up in arms?

Cardinal Müller: Pope’s exhortation does not allow Communion for divorced/remarried
05/05/2016 at 8:37 PM Posted by Mary Anne Hackett

By John Jalsevac

May 4, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, considered second only to the pope as the Vatican’s authority on doctrinal matters, has responded to the question of whether Pope Francis’ recent exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, has opened the door to giving Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s response is unambiguous: the Church’s teaching cannot be changed, and the exhortation did not do so.



vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Well, as we all know today, 2019, the CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE and Muller Himself states that the POPE CANNOT MAKE THIS CHANGE...
BUT HE HAS.

WHAT A COMEDY. Rather sad actually...
Just like YOU...some just can't accept that A DOCTRINE HAS BEEN CHANGED.


POPE JOHN PAUL II
Oh my. You want to get HIM involved?
You think it'll help YOU?
He stated repeatedly that remarrieds CANNOT RECEIVE COMMUNION...
exactly what Francis has NOW ALLOWED.


Why don't you give up?
Your ignorance is glaring.

Many times I've let you say your peace and then left you alone.
Because I don't have much time and I'm dedicating TOO MUCH OF IT TO YOU.

However, your days of calling me a liar are over.
This will go on forever if you wish....
And next time you call me a liar,,,this will happen again.

Because what I say I say knowing I'm right.

And PROTESTANTS LIKE ME????
It's too much.
I happen to be a protestant that knows catholic doctrine better than you do.
GET USED TO IT.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Say something because BoL is beginning to sound a little mad to me,
and I don't mean UPSET.

I am speaking a little out of turn. GodsGrace, you know that I love the Catholics. I agree with most of their beliefs and respect many religious leaders, but I would never give the power to another human that the Catholics give to the Pope. I fellowship to the extreme with Catholics and they know what I believe and they know I love them. But up to now none have objected to my observation…..so here I have been watching this conversation between you and BOL….He keeps digging himself a hole with his demeanor. How can you be doctor, if you never intend to heal…..I am going to suggest a thought…you tell me. "Today' GodsGrace is the Pope. Now you are the head of a 1700 year old religion…since the ecumenical councils…Your religion has made some mistakes and some are horrors. You can only apologize so much and even though you are the Pope, there is only so much you can change. And admitting error is almost sacrilege. If you see something wrong and you are a lady of character, what do you do? What can you change? The lives of people are always in a state of flux, but do we want to deny them the body of Christ? What would the heart of Christ do? What would you do? What can be done? Whether they want to admit it or not, the Vatican is a hornet’s nest of politics. Doing nothing is the safe thing. Do’er are always in trouble. But this is the measure of a person character. So is the Pope doing what he can considering the Spirit of Christ, over and above the Vatican?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
MORE RHETORIC.
NO PROOF.

What kind of a catholic are you anyway if you don't understand the extreme problem the pope has created.

You're like some of my friends...you can't accept the change so you claim it's a discipline.
This is pretty funny if it weren't so sad.
Let's go through your list:
Show me what you mean by:
CANON ---- I just posted a link showing by canon law that this is DOCTRINE.

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ---- YOU mentioned ECFs????
Are you aware that early church fathers were AGAINST DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE?
Do I have to educate you on that too? Please inform yourself,,,I have limited time.

VATICAN OFFICIALS ---- What about them BoL?
The liberal ones agree with Francis.
The conservative ones do not.
WHY do you suppose the conservative ones do not?
MAYBE because he would be the first pope IN HISTORY to change a DOGMA/DOCTRINE?
THIS IS UNHEARD OF.

Here's Cardinal Muller saying IT CANNOT BE CHANGED and stating that the POPE HAS MADE NO CHANGES.
LOL LOL LOL
Then WHY are remarrieds receiving communion?
WHY are priests up in arms?

Cardinal Müller: Pope’s exhortation does not allow Communion for divorced/remarried
05/05/2016 at 8:37 PM Posted by Mary Anne Hackett

By John Jalsevac

May 4, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, considered second only to the pope as the Vatican’s authority on doctrinal matters, has responded to the question of whether Pope Francis’ recent exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, has opened the door to giving Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s response is unambiguous: the Church’s teaching cannot be changed, and the exhortation did not do so.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Well, as we all know today, 2019, the CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE and Muller Himself states that the POPE CANNOT MAKE THIS CHANGE...
BUT HE HAS.

WHAT A COMEDY. Rather sad actually...
Just like YOU...some just can't accept that A DOCTRINE HAS BEEN CHANGED.
POPE JOHN PAUL II
Oh my. You want to get HIM involved?
You think it'll help YOU?
He stated repeatedly that remarrieds CANNOT RECEIVE COMMUNION...
exactly what Francis has NOW ALLOWED.
Why don't you give up?
Your ignorance is glaring.

Many times I've let you say your peace and then left you alone.
Because I don't have much time and I'm dedicating TOO MUCH OF IT TO YOU.

However, your days of calling me a liar are over.
This will go on forever if you wish....
And next time you call me a liar,,,this will happen again.

Because what I say I say knowing I'm right.

And PROTESTANTS LIKE ME????
It's too much.
I happen to be a protestant that knows catholic doctrine better than you do.
GET USED TO IT.
PROVE IT !
I already HAVE proven it. Unlike YOU, I won’t post the same texts repeatedly out of desperation. You rejected what I presented, which speaks volumes about your ignorance of Catholic teaching.

The Canon Law you posted doesn’t proclaim that withholding or allowing Communion is a Doctrinal OR Dogmatic assertion. It makes the case that mortal sin is a Doctrinal and Dogmatic teaching.

NOT sure why you think you “know more” about the Catholic Church than I do – but you can go ahead and live in your warped world. I proved you wrong by exposing your lie and revealed that not only do you NOT understand the texts that you presented – but that your ignorance of Catholic teaching is FAR worse than I originally thought.

Next time – pick a topic that you have some sort of grasp of . . .
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gee, ANOTHER lie . . .

YOUR posts only reflect your ignorant and perverted point of view - but the don't reflect the teachings of the Church.


Capture2.JPG







Capture4.JPG
The crisis today in the relationships of men and women is multi-faceted. The general lack of manners in their interaction is both an indication and a cause of the crisis.

Women are to be reverenced, always and just because they are women. This truth, as other basic truths, is universally knowable, even though not universally known and practiced.

The nature and dignity of woman may remain something of a mystery to most men. But nevertheless, actions that show reverence to women can and should be expected of them. It was once so, as part of a code of manners. If universally expected, these actions will be generally practiced; and among some, perhaps even many, the corresponding interior dispositions will grow.

On the very first page of Emily Post’s Etiquette we find the following instructions about introductions:

First, a younger person is presented to an older person. Second, a gentleman is always presented to a lady, even though she is no older than eighteen. Third, no woman is ever presented to a man, unless he is: the President of the United States, the recognized head of another country; a member of a royal family; a cardinal or other church dignitary.

Such instructions probably strike us, especially the young, as odd. But then again, they seem to speak to something deep within us. In every introduction involving a woman, she is to be given a certain priority and reverence. Such customary manners were an expression of a communal understanding, even if only implicit, about the dignity of woman. But more than just an expression, they were a central means of cultivating and promoting that understanding and a corresponding reverence.

There will always be men, even among those who do practice good manners, who will view and treat women inappropriately. The condition of our human nature, including our freedom, pretty much assures this. But rather than lessening the importance of manners, it gives special reason to value them. We all, especially parents, have every reason to redouble our efforts to instill good manners and customary practices between men and women.

Such practices are of course the responsibility of both sexes. But the responsibility falls first upon men, and it is there that I focus my attention. It is worth simply calling to mind some traditional practices.

As a rule, a man holds the door for a woman; he offers his seat to a woman; he offers to carry something heavy; he walks on the side closer to traffic; he offers his umbrella; he gives more attention to his clothes and grooming in her presence; he is especially vigilant about his language; he does not pry into her private life. And in all these things he is careful not to seem patronizing or pushy. Indeed, now that such practices can be seen as offensive by some women, it is all the more incumbent upon a man to act with prudence and in no way to seem to be ‘making a point’ of his manners.

The interaction between men and women in contexts either potentially or actually romantic calls for special attention. Traditional practices here, which in fact go beyond what would normally be called manners, were rooted in a two main convictions: first, romance is ordered toward marriage, and second, the human condition demands that steps be taken to protect the integrity of romance, and especially to protect the honor of women. Rather than stemming from a prudish recoiling from the romantic or from a dark distrust of people, the observance of such rules of interaction is the fruit of an insight into the very nature of man and woman and of an understanding that their healthy interaction needs fostering.

Emily Post wrote:

If a young girl’s family is not at home, she should not, on returning from a party, invite or allow her date to ‘come in for a while.’ If he persists, she should tell him firmly, ‘Sorry, another time,’ and bid him ‘good night.’ However, if her parents are home and have been notified, it is perfectly all right to invite him in for a snack. He should not stay overly long, and if he shows no inclination to leave, the girl should tell him that her parents have set a definite ‘curfew’ hour.

These guidelines might strike us as too much, or as too specific. What is worth noticing, it seems to me, is the common sense approach to addressing a real issue. Whatever their exact formulation, when rules such as the above are commonly practiced they incarnate and convey a sense of propriety and limit. Young men and women are thus given to understand that their interaction is part of something bigger than themselves, something that will demand much of them. These are points that young men, in particular, need to learn. Acting well by the women in their life will always be an arduous task. To have to work hard to ‘win’ their way into relationships is a fitting preparation.

How to formulate and promulgate reasonable practices in this area will challenge even the most vibrant families and communities today. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is to make the practices an expression not of fear but of hope. Healthy communities have always realized that the proper relating of men and women is a flower that needs careful, communal cultivation. It does not bloom and flourish of itself.

Some today might ask what basis there is for giving women special care and attention. This is of course in itself a profound question. Yet at times the spirit in which the question is posed can indicate that certain fundamental insights have simply been lost. More and more we tend to see ‘nature’ as something to re-mold according to our wishes, and we do not hear what she is saying to us about who we are.

Women are deserving of special reverence not because of weakness, but because of strength. In women, a man can intuit the presence of something that transcends his comprehension. It is in reality something of the divine, something that is somehow his to cherish, to serve, and to protect. Just what it is, and how best to respond to it, he will need to spend a lifetime trying to discover.

Good manners in the interaction of men and women is a great tool in this effort. And we can work together in our communities to reclaim and reform these expressions of an ancient wisdom.Capture2.JPG Capture4.JPG
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
I am speaking a little out of turn. GodsGrace, you know that I love the Catholics. I agree with most of their beliefs and respect many religious leaders, but I would never give the power to another human that the Catholics give to the Pope. I fellowship to the extreme with Catholics and they know what I believe and they know I love them. But up to now none have objected to my observation…..so here I have been watching this conversation between you and BOL….He keeps digging himself a hole with his demeanor. How can you be doctor, if you never intend to heal…..I am going to suggest a thought…you tell me. "Today' GodsGrace is the Pope. Now you are the head of a 1700 year old religion…since the ecumenical councils…Your religion has made some mistakes and some are horrors. You can only apologize so much and even though you are the Pope, there is only so much you can change. And admitting error is almost sacrilege. If you see something wrong and you are lady of character, what do you do? What can you change? The lives of people are always in a state of flux, but do we what to deny them the body of Christ? What would the heart of Christ do? What would you do? What can be done? Whether they want to admit it or not, the Vatican is a hornet’s nest of politics. Doing nothing is the safe thing. Do’er are always in trouble. But this is the measure of a person character. So is the Pope doing what he can considering the Spirit of Christ, over and above the Vatican?
Great post because this issue is not easy to understand...
especially by church lovers that are horrified that Pope Francis is trying to make a change.

OK. What would I do.

We have here a great big problem.
JESUS said there can be no divorce.
In Matthew He said except for adultery...In Mark He made no exception.
The Cath Ch chose to go with Mark and makes NO EXCEPTION. If a man commits adultery, that is NOT a reason for divorce. (there are some reasons in the CC for DIVORCE..it's in my post 139)

So now Jesus said we can't divorce.
Is that like His other teachings or is it different?
Do we believe Him for His other teachings and not this one?
Why?

The bible says what God has put together -- let no man put assunder.
Hardly anyone got divorced before...now the divorce rate is at 50% even among
Christians.

What do do?


Now to the human part.
A woman gets left by her husband.
She's 35 and is raising two children.
What is she supposed to do?
What if she meets a man she could spend the rest of her life with?
It is not good for man to be alone.
Children deserve a mother and a father.

But we're taught that marriage is FOREVER.
Kind of like a priest leaving the priesthood...BUT HE'S STILL A PRIEST !
The other partner has left but has not died.
Till death do us part.


I think if God could forgive ALL SIN except for one...
then why not divorce?

Jesus said not to steal...
we steal...
we get forgiven when asked.

Jesus said not to envy, or lie, or take God's name in vain.
Do we get forgiven for these sins?
YES.

So...I AGREE WITH THE POPE.
Something needs to change....
He's trying to make the change.
There's too many against him,,,including the magesterium.

He most probably is working behind the scenes...
He has a lot of power.

There's an enciclycal or something coming out soon...
we can only wait and see....I don't know so much anymore what's going on before it happens...I Used to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter