Author Topic: Bowler the stubborn liberal (Read 9787 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #105 on:** February 26, 2014, 04:23:56 PM »

Quote from: SJB

One does not need the Eucharist before a sacramental confession, so you've made another armchair idiot argument:

Whatever that means no one knows - not even you I'm sure.

But *this* teaching from Trent means what it says - why you reject it has to do with you despising the sacraments:

"...that no one, conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians..."

If one is in mortal sin, that person is not permitted to receive Holy Communion without previous sacramental confession. Period.

You can continue to argue that all day long and post from whatever other books that say otherwise, but those efforts of yours arguing will never change the infallible teaching of the Church "as once declared".

bowler · « **Reply #106 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:18:13 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
One does not need the Eucharist before a sacramental confession, so you've made another armchair idiot argument:

Whatever that means no one knows - not even you I'm sure.

SJB's is quoting Yogi Berra.

SJB · « **Reply #107 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:56:59 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: SJB
One does not need the Eucharist before a sacramental confession, so you've made another armchair idiot argument:

Whatever that means no one knows - not even you I'm sure.

But *this* teaching from Trent means what it says - why you reject it has to do with you despising the sacraments:

"...that no one, conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This the holy Synod hath decreed is to be invariably observed by all Christians..."

If one is in mortal sin, that person is not permitted to receive Holy Communion without previous sacramental confession. Period.

You can continue to argue that all day long and post from whatever other books that say otherwise, but those efforts of yours arguing will never change the infallible teaching of the Church "as once declared".

Idiot, the fact that the Sacrament of the Holy Communion cannot be received until a Sacramental confession is not an argument against the efficacy of an act of perfect contrition.

Anyway, it appears that, in the past, viaticuм was allowed to be given to those who were not permitted a sacramental confession.

SJB · « **Reply #108 on:** February 26, 2014, 07:01:20 PM »

Read, idiots:

Stubborn · « **Reply #109 on:** February 26, 2014, 08:28:12 PM »

Read what?

What does anyone need to read further after reading and accepting the teaching of Trent declaring whomever is in mortal sin is not permitted to receive Holy Communion, "how contrite soever he may seem to himself" and "without previous sacramental confession".

What this means is just what it says in all it's clarity and simplicity.

Now SJB, always remember that the First Vatican Council explicitly taught with the full force of it's infallible authority: "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

This is why we know that, not only are we certain that Trent meant precisely what it taught, but also that any and all teachings that add exceptions of any kind to the above teaching "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding" are condemned.

If you can try to always remember this SJB, you will find that all the sources you and the other BODers always post which do not agree with Trent's teaching, always attempt to accomplish this "under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding" which is condemned by V1 - because they do not accept that the: "meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother the church."

SJB · « **Reply #110 on:** February 26, 2014, 09:27:03 PM »

Quote from: idiot

What does anyone need to read further after reading and accepting the teaching of Trent declaring whomever is in mortal sin is not permitted to receive Holy Communion, "how contrite soever he may seem to himself" and "without previous sacramental confession".

NOBODY disagrees with this, dummy. You are blind.

SJB · « **Reply #111 on:** February 26, 2014, 09:37:47 PM »

Another reference to perfect contrition that can assure salvation in an example where the sacrament of penance was denied by the Church:

Stubborn · « **Reply #112 on:** February 27, 2014, 04:31:05 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: idiot
What does anyone need to read further after reading and accepting the teaching of Trent declaring whomever is in mortal sin is not permitted to receive Holy Communion, "how contrite soever he may seem to himself" and "without previous sacramental confession".

NOBODY disagrees with this, dummy. You are blind.

But then you say:

Quote from: SJB

Another reference to perfect contrition that can assure salvation in an example where the sacrament of penance was denied by the Church:

As demonstrated, Trent taught that contrition does not suffice to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion if we are in mortal sin, which, unless you are "NOBODY", you agree with - but your book teaches that "contrition can assure salvation" - which you again agree with. How you can possibly agree with both, only "NOBODY" knows.

Now most people can grasp that fact that since contrition does not justify reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion, then contrition can in no way "assure salvation". Try to grasp that fact.

So you are trying to convince me that one can be rewarded heaven via perfect contrition, they just cannot receive communion via a perfect contrition.

Quote from: The Council of Trent; 14th Session, Chapter II

And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.

You keep seeking for nonexistent loop holes instead of the truth - when the truth is right before you.

BTW, we're going on 10 weeks now and you or any other avid BODer here still have not answered my challenge to start a thread defending the necessity of the sacraments - do you realize what that means to this debate?
It means that by now, you should accept and already admit that you despise the necessity of the sacraments and that I have been right all along in my accusation of you despising them.

Quote from: Trent's catechism

For he who makes no use of what is really useful and necessary must be supposed to despise it; particularly since, in communicating to the Church the power of forgiving sin, the Lord did so with the view that all should have recourse to this healing remedy. As without Baptism no one can be cleansed, so in order to recover the grace of Baptism, forfeited by actual mortal guilt, recourse must be had to another means of expiation, -- namely, the Sacrament of Penance.

SJB · « **Reply #113 on:** February 27, 2014, 01:45:59 PM »

Quote from: stubborn

Now most people can grasp that fact that since contrition does not justify reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion, then contrition can in no way "assure salvation". Try to grasp that fact.

It's not a fact.