-
:facepalm:
“Bergoglio greets transgenders in a public audience
Pope Bergoglio conbtinues to break his own records: On June 22, 2022, he greeted a group of six transgender "women" in a public audience at St. Peter's Square.
Above, you see the man who took on the name of Allesia Nobile shaking hands with the Pope. He wrote a book, The Invisible Girl – La Bambina Invisibible – and delivered it to Bergoglio when received for that individual greeting, first row below.
The transgender explained to Fanpage (https://www.fanpage.it/roma/papa-francesco-incontra-sei-donne-transgender-ci-siamo-sentite-accolte-senza-pregiudizi/) what happened during the audience: "We met with a sister and a priest at the Vatican who are part of the National TRANSition Group of LGBT+ Christians – a project of La Tenda di Gionata. The Pope received each one of us and I was the first. To give him my book was a dream come true."
He continued: "He [the Pope] did not want me to kneel, he held my hand and when I presented myself as a transgender girl he responded that he did not care who I was, that we all have one Father, as if he wanted to tell me, 'you are my sister.'"
When the transgender gave the book to Francis, "he [the Pope] took it and told me, 'Brave girl, you did well writing your story.' Then, he recommended that I always be myself and not to let myself be impressed by prejudices of the Church. ... I felt myself welcomed, taken by the hand and embraced."
Below second row, the six transgenders show their permits to enter the VIP area of the public audience in order to personally greet the Pope.
The meeting was organized by Sister Genevier, who proposed the encounter to the Pope, explaining to him that it was not only one person who wanted to meet him but six from different countries. He responded: "Bring them all."
What can we say to characterize this new barrier broken by Bergoglio? We see him blessing the sins against nature – ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and the abomination of transgenderism – as if they were normal activities. How can we not think of the "man of sin" described by St. Paul (2 Thes 2 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+2&version=DRA)) when addressing the Great Apostasy?
(https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/992-Tra-2.jpg)
-
Choir with obscene T-shirts performs for the Pope
On June 8, 2022, Pope Francis gave VIP treatment to a Italian choir wearing T-shirts with the words "F??? Cancer Choir." The group of about 30 persons was seated not far from to the Pope's chair on St. Peter's Square, above; below first and second rows.
The choir was then invited to perform for him, third to the fifth rows. After listening to their songs, a laughing Francis told them: "You are good, you are poets, thank you."
With this gesture Bergoglio approved by the way of facts – in his typical Jesuitic style – foul language not only as a normal way of expressing oneself but also in special solemn circuмstances, as is a public audience with the Pope.
It is another severe wound against public morality and good customs inflicted by the one who should be, instead, the guardian of the highest morals inherited from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Read more on this topic here (https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/f-word-appears-papal-audience-good-cause-2022-06-08/).
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/990-Cho-3.jpg)
-
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/931_Cr1.jpg)
Pope names ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ to Vatican commission
On March 24, 2021, Pope Francis appointed (https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/03/24/pope-francis-names-gαy-man-to-clergy-sex-abuse-commission/) known Chilean ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Juan Carlos Cruz to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.
Cruz became vocal in 2011, giving many interviews on the sɛҳuąƖ abuse he suffered when a child from Fr. Fernando Karadima (https://traditioninaction.org/bev/219bev05_30_2018.htm).
Later, he publicly stated that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and became an activist for the LGBT agenda. In April 2018 he was received by Francis, above, who told him: "Juan Carlos, the fact that you are gαy does not matter. God made you like that and he loves you like that and I do not care. The Pope loves you as you are; you have to be happy as you are. (Here (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38453/chilean-abuse-victim-pope-told-me-to-accept-being-gαy-god-made-me-this-way) and here (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz))
Francis' initiative has been considered an indirect answer to the March 15, 2021 Response (https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html) by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to a Dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons in same sex unions. The Response said that “God cannot bless sin.”
So, we see that Bergoglio does not lose any opportunity to favor the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda. Further, if some Vatican authority steps up to oppose that agenda, he immediately counter-attacks to be sure that the sodomites will have the upper hand in the discussion.
It is unnecessary to say that pro-homo priests like Fr. James Martin, below, was very pleased with Pope Bergoglio's choice of Cruz.
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/931_Cr2.jpg)
-
Blanco sings for the Pope
The star of the Italian song Blanco, alias Riccardo Fabbriconi, was invited by the Italian Conference of Bishop to sing for the Pope during his encounter with the Italian youth, which brought together 80,000 people according to the press. The meeting was celebrated on Easter Monday, on April 18, 2022.
The invitation raised a controversy (https://lanuovabq.it/it/uno-scandalo-blanco-a-san-pietro-danneggia-i-giovani?fbclid=IwAR0MNvWFIfYkzmWcwZc2prta8y7kINXyd0vWSTac5QB3WPt7Y_LuDrwBeh0) since Blanco's morality is quite opposed to Catholic Doctrine. He has no problem appearing in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ poses, kissing lovers or showing his head between a male legs, as shown on this page. He sometimes also appears in loving poses with young woman, which would seem to characterize him as a bi-sɛҳuąƖ.
Despite the opposition, the Italian Bishops held to the schedule, affirming that he was a good model for the Italian youth.
Pope Francis endorsed this decision with his presence and listening to the star sing Blu celeste.
It is another significant denial of Catholic Morals made by a Pope who should represent Our Lord Jesus Christ, and not the free-love customs of our pagan times. It brings to mind the dire prophecies of Our Lady of La Salette who said that Rome would become the seat of the Antichrist. “
-
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/991-Tha-1.jpg)
Buddhist monks received at the Vatican
On June 17, 2022, Pope Bergoglio received a delegation of 33 Buddhist monks plus 60 lay men and women from Thailand. The encounter took place at the Clementine Hall in the Apostolic Palace, above.
The meeting was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Paul V's historic meeting with the Supreme Buddhist priest of Thailand on June 5, 1972.
In his address, Francis affirmed that "Buddha and Jesus understood the need to overcome the egoism that generates conflicts and violence." He continued: "It is our duty to lead our respective followers to a living sense that we are all brothers and sisters."
With these words, Francis continues the unceasing conciliar policy of denying the unicity of our Holy Faith and supporting the statement that all religions lead to eternal salvation. In other words, it is a confirmation of the great apostasy from the Catholic Faith and the affirmation of the heresy of universal salvation.
Below first and second rows, two photos of the meetings on this past June 17. Third row, Thai Buddhist Authority who met with Paul VI in 1972; fourth row, John Paul II receiving Japanese Buddhists at St. Peter's Square on April 28, 2004; fifth row, Benedict XVI on June 21, 2006; last row, Francis visiting Thai Supreme Buddhist authority in Bangkok on November 21, 2019.
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/991-Tha-2.jpg)
-
(https://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images(901-1000)/989-Bna-1.jpg)
Bergoglio receives award from the B'nai B'rith
In the photo above, we see the CEO of B'nai B'rith International Daniel S. Mariaschin giving Pope Bergoglio a gold chalice with Jєωιѕн inscriptions and symbols. This was a symbolic award to thank Francis for his constant support for this Jєωιѕн Masonic organization.
This took place during a meeting in the Papal Library when Francis received a delegation of 27 members of that organization on May 30, 2022.
Commenting on the encounter, Mariachin told the Jerusalem Post (https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/article-708314): “From his years as Cardinal in Buenos Aires until today, Pope Francis has expressed a special interest in furthering Jєωιѕн-Catholic relations." He continued, “Our audience with him gave us an opportunity to demonstrate our appreciation for this support, to confirm our shared aspirations for peace and mutual respect."
In a formal speech, the president of the Jєωιѕн organization Seth Riklin asked for papal support for the Abraham Accords, which is a Jєωιѕн initiative to make Arabs recognize the State of Israel. This was an implicit request for the Holy See to exercise its influence over the Middle East Arab countries to accept Israel. This is what B'nai B'rith calls its work for fraternity and peace.
In his speech, Francis praised B'nai B'rith for its “tireless commitment to humanitarian causes.” He added: “If the duty to care for others is incuмbent upon every member of our human family, it applies even more to those of us who are Jews and Christians.”
We see that, after Vatican II and its Nostra aetateDeclaration, the conciliar Popes have set aside any doctrinal discussion with the Jews about the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and are conducting a policy based on a supposed love and common collaboration to solve social problems. On the other hand, the Jews did not change one comma of their false beliefs.
What could be the final end of this policy
except a Judaization of the entire Church?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/i2DseIh.png)
-
As I mentioned before, please stop talking about "mortal sin" ... as opposed to grave sin. You really need to get off this "mortal sin" stuff.
Secondly, there's no issues with a pope giving an audience to people in grave sin ... as Our Lord Himself was criticized by the Pharisees and even at times by His own Apostles for meeting with sinners.
What's at issue here is the impression that he gives of condoning the grave sin of transgenderism. One could meet with them to convert them, or meet with them to condone their behavior, and the issue is that he's doing the latter rather than the former, but simply meeting with those in grave sin is no problem. On the other hand, meeting approvingly with those who actively promote grave sin, without rebuking the sin, that's the scandal here.
-
He continued: "He [the Pope] did not want me to kneel, he held my hand and when I presented myself as a transgender girl he responded that he did not care who I was, that we all have one Father, as if he wanted to tell me, 'you are my sister.'"
When the transgender gave the book to Francis, "he [the Pope] took it and told me, 'Brave girl, you did well writing your story.' Then, he recommended that I always be myself and not to let myself be impressed by prejudices of the Church. ... I felt myself welcomed, taken by the hand and embraced."
So, here's another case (as in all the stuff reported by Scalfari) where the heretical mindset of Begoglio is being reported second-hand. Behind closed doors, with Scalfari, and here with the so-called transgenders, Bergolgio makes abominable statements, referring to "prejudices of the Church". As you point out, in PUBLIC, Bergoglio will make some statements affirming Catholic doctrine (to keep up appearances), but then secretly denounces those same teachings, referring to them here as "prejudices". In doing it this way, Bergoglio can keep a distance from his undermining of Catholic teaching, so his apologists could respond (well, this is what this person said, and it could be misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what Bergoglio actually said). And yet there's never any denial coming out of the Vatican. Scalfari reported clear-cut heresy from Bergoglio, and if he had mis-reported it, the Vatican was under obligation to immediately deny the allegations. But no such denial ever came. So by their silence, we can hold Bergoglio guilty as charged regarding what Scalfari reported. On top of it, Bergoglio CONTINUED to keep giving interviews to Scalfari after some of the explosive allegations were made. One would think that if Scalfari were distorting Bergoglio's beliefs, Bergoglio would at least stop giving him interviews.
First Scalfari said that Bergoglio denied the existence of a hell that lasts forever. Then, after this, they gave him ANOTHER interview, after which he said that Beroglio told him that he didn't believe that Jesus is God. That would be outright apostasy.
-
So, here's another case (as in all the stuff reported by Scalfari) where the heretical mindset of Begoglio is being reported second-hand. Behind closed doors, with Scalfari, and here with the so-called transgenders, Bergolgio makes abominable statements, referring to "prejudices of the Church". As you point out, in PUBLIC, Bergoglio will make some statements affirming Catholic doctrine (to keep up appearances), but then secretly denounces those same teachings, referring to them here as "prejudices". In doing it this way, Bergoglio can keep a distance from his undermining of Catholic teaching, so his apologists could respond (well, this is what this person said, and it could be misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what Bergoglio actually said). And yet there's never any denial coming out of the Vatican. Scalfari reported clear-cut heresy from Bergoglio, and if he had mis-reported it, the Vatican was under obligation to immediately deny the allegations. But no such denial ever came. So by their silence, we can hold Bergoglio guilty as charged regarding what Scalfari reported. On top of it, Bergoglio CONTINUED to keep giving interviews to Scalfari after some of the explosive allegations were made. One would think that if Scalfari were distorting Bergoglio's beliefs, Bergoglio would at least stop giving him interviews.
First Scalfari said that Bergoglio denied the existence of a hell that lasts forever. Then, after this, they gave him ANOTHER interview, after which he said that Beroglio told him that he didn't believe that Jesus is God. That would be outright apostasy.
Exactly right.
-
My guess is that Scalfari was accurately reporting what Bergoglio said. Bergoglio wanted that stuff out there, since he likes to cause chaos, but then if he's called out in it, he can just pretend that Scalfari mist-reported it.
-
As I mentioned before, please stop talking about "mortal sin" ... as opposed to grave sin. You really need to get off this "mortal sin" stuff.
Secondly, there's no issues with a pope giving an audience to people in grave sin ... as Our Lord Himself was criticized by the Pharisees and even at times by His own Apostles for meeting with sinners.
What's at issue here is the impression that he gives of condoning the grave sin of transgenderism. One could meet with them to convert them, or meet with them to condone their behavior, and the issue is that he's doing the latter rather than the former, but simply meeting with those in grave sin is no problem. On the other hand, meeting approvingly with those who actively promote grave sin, without rebuking the sin, that's the scandal here.
Got to ask here... are you affirming that mortal sin takes place when you have grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will?
I normally use the circuмlocution "matter that is mortally sinful in itself, given the other two conditions" instead of "grave sin", and that is how I convey it to my son in homeschool religion class. (He came out of six years of diocesan "Catholic" school not knowing the difference between mortal and venial sin, no surprises there.)
I know this doesn't describe you --- I am thankful for our good discussions both public and private --- but ever since the 1970s, I've picked up on this "grave sin" and "serious sin" business, as though some would like to be able to speak of an "intermediate state" of "grave sin" between venial sin and mortal sin, to allow for someone being able to commit (and, more often, to persist in without repentance and firm purpose of amendment) gravely sinful activity, yet somehow not be alienated from Almighty God and not be worthy of eternal damnation. I have in mind here "pelvic issues" such as contraception, masturbation, cohabitation without benefit of marriage (which would include living in a non-Josephite invalid "marriage"), and even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity. People who do any of these things are not normally warned in Newchurch that they must abstain from holy communion.
-
Got to ask here... are you affirming that mortal sin takes place when you have grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will?
I normally use the circuмlocution "matter that is mortally sinful in itself, given the other two conditions" instead of "grave sin", and that is how I convey it to my son in homeschool religion class. (He came out of six years of diocesan "Catholic" school not knowing the difference between mortal and venial sin, no surprises there.)
I know this doesn't describe you --- I am thankful for our good discussions both public and private --- but ever since the 1970s, I've picked up on this "grave sin" and "serious sin" business, as though some would like to be able to speak of an "intermediate state" of "grave sin" between venial sin and mortal sin, to allow for someone being able to commit (and, more often, to persist in without repentance and firm purpose of amendment) gravely sinful activity, yet somehow not be alienated from Almighty God and not be worthy of eternal damnation. I have in mind here "pelvic issues" such as contraception, masturbation, cohabitation without benefit of marriage (which would include living in a non-Josephite invalid "marriage"), and even ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activity. People who do any of these things are not normally warned in Newchurch that they must abstain from holy communion.
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":
Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
Sounds like yet another definition of sin rife for abuse by heretics, as you suspect.
And here's what St. Alphonsus has on the matter of "grave sin" from Grant's translation of Moral Theology:
When on Thursday, 24 August 1690, in the General Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition the two following propositions were brought into examination, namely:
1. Objective goodness consists in the agreement of an object with rational nature; but formal goodness consists in the conformity of an act with the rule of morals. For this it is sufficient that the moral act tend toward its ultimate end interpretatively. Man is not obliged to love this end, neither in the beginning nor in the course of his moral life.
2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.
The Supreme Pontiff declared the first proposition to be heretical; the second as rash, scandalous, etc.
I can see why the 2nd is considered scandalous, as it opens the discussion to abuses by those who would like to eliminate the culpability of all mortal sins as "grave sins" unworthy of eternal punihsmemt.punishment.
-
You don't necessarily have to "think about God" in order to commit mortal sin, as per the condemned proposition. Nevertheless, the mortality of a sin is a matter for the internal forum since it does have the component of sufficient reflection and intent. There's way too much facile slinging around of the term "mortal sin" ... even for things that are not sinful by the natural law. This is regularly done by the Dimond Brothers and then also by their opponents, as mutual accusations of mortal sin fly. We saw where the Dimonds were accused of the "mortal sin of calumny," whereas in their reasoning (even if faulty), they were convinced that what they were doing was justified. There are many people out there committing grave sin who have perhaps been told by their NO Confessor (or heard it, as here, from Bergoglio) that they're perfectly OK the way they are (remaining in this grave sin).
Nor is it wrong for a Pope to meet with people in grave (or even mortal) sin. What's wrong is the impression he gives of condoning the sin ... and especially where Bergoglio reportedly denounced the Church's teaching against trangenderism as "prejudice".
-
"Pope gives audience to those in a state of mortal sin"
VCR, how do you know they are in a state of mortal sin?
-
Jesus met with sinners and said “Go, Sin no more.
Bergolio gives audience to sinners to promote sin. Bergolio tells the people it’s ok to remain their sin. It is why the Catholic Church is in crisis today.
Bergolio is not Jesus. Bergolio worships false a earth goddess. He is in a state of mortal sin by promoting men who are in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin is grave sin.
-
These people are in a state of mortal grave sin because they are not repenting but are being used by the perverts in the Vatican to promote sin.
“The transgender explained to Fanpage (https://www.fanpage.it/roma/papa-francesco-incontra-sei-donne-transgender-ci-siamo-sentite-accolte-senza-pregiudizi/) what happened during the audience: "We met with a sister and a priest at the Vatican who are part of the National TRANSition Group of LGBT+ Christians – a project of La Tenda di Gionata. The Pope received each one of us and I was the first. To give him my book was a dream come true.”
Pervert pop star gave performance on Easter Monday is mortal sin which was approved by Bergolio.
-
These people are in a state of mortal grave sin ...
"mortal grave" is not really a term.
-
Bergolio joyfully gave audience to Nancy Peℓσѕι and Biden. The job of the Pope is to excommunicate public sinners instead of inviting them for a private audience.
Until they publicly apologize, confess and make reparations they are all in a state of sin.
-
Per Baltimore Catechism:
53. Q. How many kinds of actual sin are there?
A. There are two kinds of actual sin-mortal and venial.
-
"Pope gives audience to those in a state of mortal sin"
VCR, how do you know they are in a state of mortal sin?
Because they're transgenders? Right off the bat, that's a sin against the 5th commandment because it does violence against their own bodies. Without even getting into the issues surrounding the abomination of significantly altering your body contrary to the nature God gave it.
-
they are all in a state of sin.
Stop obsessing about people's state of soul.
Your thread title should been more along the lines of "Bergoglio condones grave sin". Who cares if he "meets" with sinners? You have a knee-jerk reaction of labeling people in mortal sin and obsessing about their state of soul (newsflash: you are not their judge).
Real story here is that Beroglio is reported to have referred to Church teaching against transgenderism as "prejudices of the Church". That's a far worse problem than the fact that some sick individuals think that they're women. Sinners will always be with us; what's unprecedented is the man pretending to be pope condoning sin.
-
Because they're transgenders? Right off the bat, that's a sin against the 5th commandment because it does violence against their own bodies. Without even getting into the issues surrounding the abomination of significantly altering your body contrary to the nature God gave it.
That makes is grave sin (external forum). "Mortal" sin is a matter for the internal forum that will be judged by God.
Nor does it matter that Bergoglio "gives an audience" to those in "mortal" sin. What matters here is that he reportedly condoned it. Also, the thread title is false by claiming that the "Pope" did these things.
-
Timothy Douay-Rheims bible
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://biblehub.com/drbc/1_timothy/5.htm)
Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear.
-
Because they're transgenders? Right off the bat, that's a sin against the 5th commandment because it does violence against their own bodies. Without even getting into the issues surrounding the abomination of significantly altering your body contrary to the nature God gave it.
Transgender refers to how people "identify".
TransɛҳuąƖ refers to gender reassignment surgery.
The first, while disgusting, is not a mortally sinful action unless the purpose of your dressing up is to cause someone else to commit mortal sin.
The second could be morally sinful depending upon the disposition.
-
Transgender refers to how people "identify".
TransɛҳuąƖ refers to gender reassignment surgery.
The first, while disgusting, is not a mortally sinful action unless the purpose of your dressing up is to cause someone else to commit mortal sin.
That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)
The second could be mortally sinful depending upon the disposition.
I don't see how it isn't mortally sinful. It's a grave act against human nature. We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.
Both transgenderism and transsɛҳuąƖism are both mortally sinful since they defile human nature.
-
That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)
I don't see how it isn't mortally sinful. It's a grave act against human nature. We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.
Both transgenderism and transsɛҳuąƖism are both mortally sinful since they defile human nature.
- Its subject matter must be grave.
- It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
- It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.
-
We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.
Their false allegation that God made them that way has nothing to do with the issues (as cited by epiphany) regarding the subjective guilt. We have NO priests and even Bergoglio (in so many words) telling people that sodomy, transgenderism, etc. are OK. It suffices to say grave sin without having to soul-read about their interior dispositions (leaving that to God alone).
-
Stop obsessing about people's state of soul.
Your thread title should been more along the lines of "Bergoglio condones grave sin". Who cares if he "meets" with sinners? You have a knee-jerk reaction of labeling people in mortal sin and obsessing about their state of soul (newsflash: you are not their judge).
YES. This.
VCR has shown a lot of growth in admitting her own faults and maliciousness towards other people... but this is one hurdle. Lad is spot-on here, and it's something we could all work on tbh.
-
Their false allegation that God made them that way has nothing to do with the issues (as cited by epiphany) regarding the subjective guilt. We have NO priests and even Bergoglio (in so many words) telling people that sodomy, transgenderism, etc. are OK. It suffices to say grave sin without having to soul-read about their interior dispositions (leaving that to God alone).
How does saying that this act is objectively mortally sinful equate "soul-reading"? If you see someone openly rejecting their human nature, it doesn't take the charism of soul-reading to know they are in a state of mortal sin. Yes, we should give the benefit of the doubt to some people. But there's also things that are just objectively sinful, and this is one of them.
Making these sorts of hair-splitting distinctions is one way how the world has gotten as bad as it is. "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." Matt. 5:37]
-
Thread title fixed, I win and discussion over???
-
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":
Sounds like yet another definition of sin rife for abuse by heretics, as you suspect.
And here's what St. Alphonsus has on the matter of "grave sin" from Grant's translation of Moral Theology:I can see why the 2nd is considered scandalous, as it opens the discussion to abuses by those who would like to eliminate the culpability of all mortal sins as "grave sins" unworthy of eternal punihsmemt.punishment.
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":
Quote
Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.
I have never heard it expressed quite this way before, but it's the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I'm not going to quibble, but rather add this to the lifelong process of further education. The way I am seeing it here, the category of sin (e.g., stealing, lying, the umbrella category of the Fifth Commandment, and so on) is "grave", but at the same time, there can be parvity of matter, such as stealing a small amount, telling a small lie, quarreling verbally with someone but not to the level that it would be a mortal sin, and so on.
Deliberate and complete carnal acts against the Sixth and/or Ninth Commandments, by their very nature, cannot admit of parvity of matter.
Just out of curiosity, then, what categories of sins would not be "grave"? Minor violations of one of the Precepts of the Church? Something else?
-
This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":
Quote
I have never heard it expressed quite this way before, but it's the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I'm not going to quibble, but rather add this to the lifelong process of further education. The way I am seeing it here, the category of sin (e.g., stealing, lying, the umbrella category of the Fifth Commandment, and so on) is "grave", but at the same time, there can be parvity of matter, such as stealing a small amount, telling a small lie, quarreling verbally with someone but not to the level that it would be a mortal sin, and so on.
Deliberate and complete carnal acts against the Sixth and/or Ninth Commandments, by their very nature, cannot admit of parvity of matter.
Just out of curiosity, then, what categories of sins would not be "grave"? Minor violations of one of the Precepts of the Church? Something else?
I believe St. Thomas Aquinas said that gluttony, for instance, can almost never become a grave sin. So, the thinking is that if the category of sin is mentioned in the 10 commandments, that puts it inherently into the CATEGORY of grave sin ... but then most moral theologians tie just about every sin somehow to the 10 commandments. So, for instance, the 8th commandment says not to "bear false witness", but then lesser kinds of "lying" are also considered tied to the 8th commandment. I find it a bit circular there, and I'm not convinced. So, for example, answering "no" to "do I look fat in this dress?" is not, IMO, really in the category of "bearing false witness" (sending someone to jail through false testimony). In any case, this is just an attempt to rationalize or categorize stuff, and the important thing is to understand specifically what are grave and what are venial sins.
There have been some here who say that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is not important, because we should avoid all sin, but I would have to disagree that it's not important. Not only does it help to understand the principles involved by calling out what can turn a venial sin into a mortal one, but it also helps souls make good confessions and helps them to understand when they may approach Holy Communion after a sin, etc. Church has always tried to educate the faithful about venial vs. mortal sin.
-
There have been some here who say that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is not important, because we should avoid all sin, but I would have to disagree that it's not important. Not only does it help to understand the principles involved by calling out what can turn a venial sin into a mortal one, but it also helps souls make good confessions and helps them to understand when they may approach Holy Communion after a sin, etc. Church has always tried to educate the faithful about venial vs. mortal sin.
That's a good point. It reminds me of what St. Alphonsus, if I recall correctly, said about venial sin being like a little thread that holds back a bird from flight; which the devil soon takes advantage of in order to chain the bird down entirely. Venial sins are little bread crumbs that inevitably lead us into grave sins, so they need to be avoided for this purpose, even though they do not kill the soul.
-
I believe St. Thomas Aquinas said that gluttony, for instance, can almost never become a grave sin. So, the thinking is that if the category of sin is mentioned in the 10 commandments, that puts it inherently into the CATEGORY of grave sin ... but then most moral theologians tie just about every sin somehow to the 10 commandments. So, for instance, the 8th commandment says not to "bear false witness", but then lesser kinds of "lying" are also considered tied to the 8th commandment. I find it a bit circular there, and I'm not convinced. So, for example, answering "no" to "do I look fat in this dress?" is not, IMO, really in the category of "bearing false witness" (sending someone to jail through false testimony). In any case, this is just an attempt to rationalize or categorize stuff, and the important thing is to understand specifically what are grave and what are venial sins.
There have been some here who say that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is not important, because we should avoid all sin, but I would have to disagree that it's not important. Not only does it help to understand the principles involved by calling out what can turn a venial sin into a mortal one, but it also helps souls make good confessions and helps them to understand when they may approach Holy Communion after a sin, etc. Church has always tried to educate the faithful about venial vs. mortal sin.
Not at my son's school, they didn't.
A bit of backstory here: when my son started in school, I was working very long hours, and the greedier my employer got (translated: give me more work instead of hiring the extra people I pleaded with them for years to hire), the longer the hours got. On top of that, I was forced by court order to render a fairly substantial amount of visitation, so my son (I suppose I should really say "our" son) had to go stay with his mother and her illicit consort as well, and have to witness their adulterous living situation. I reasoned, well, the school is not perfect, but homeschooling isn't an option, I'll keep an eye on things, and fill in any of the gaps that may emerge. That didn't work. When I finally took my son out of the school, when homeschooling did become an option, we launched right into the Baltimore Catechism #2, and there was lot of damage to undo, no rank heterodoxy, just massive gaps in his knowledge. We continued with BC #2 (Grade 8 last year was a bit of a hodgepodge, not least because my father was dying and we ended up having class when we could, many times during a late-night meal in the car at McDonald's!) and we have begun BC #3 this year. Just today my son initiated a description of purgatory that, while a bit fanciful --- he has a vivid imagination! --- was entirely orthodox, and I used this as an opportunity to read the story of St Catherine of Genoa as it appeared in a spiritual manual posted here on CI a few weeks ago.
So where am I going with this? When we got to the part of the BC about mortal and venial sin, I just got this "huh?" look from him, and I said "they didn't teach you any of this, did they?". He said no, all they did was leave him with the impression that all sin was mortal sin, though they didn't use that term. He was scared to death. There has been a lot of correction to do on that count, and now he understands.
Moving on directly to your comments, I would just instinctively classify gluttony under the Fifth Commandment, i.e., a doing of damage to oneself through overeating. In all of my study of catechism throughout the years, I have always just taken for granted that there are sins that are not bad enough to go to Hell for, and sins that are. Broadly speaking, the former would be the lighter or more trivial (but no sin is "trivial") kinds of sins, as I described, a trivial lie, "pilfering" of a small amount of something, general grouchiness or impatience with others (I find myself guilty of this sin a lot), grumbling or murmuring out of exasperation, and so on. As I noted above, the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (carnal sins) cannot, in themselves, not be "grave matter", if they consist of deliberate, intentional acts with the two other conditions of sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. They are a special case, and it is not for nothing that Our Lady of Fatima said that the sins that send more people to Hell than any others are the sins of the flesh --- they are the hardest to stop once becoming habit, they are the ones that most easily blind the sinner to their malice, and they are the ones easiest rationalized.
-
That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)
I don't see how it isn't mortally sinful. It's a grave act against human nature. We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.
Both transgenderism and transsɛҳuąƖism are both mortally sinful since they defile human nature.
This was mortally sinful?
(https://i.imgur.com/UU7BJEk.png)
-
This was mortally sinful?
(https://i.imgur.com/UU7BJEk.png)
I don't think St Joan of Arc, or anyone with whom she was associated, was of the impression that she was in any way not a woman, or not wanting to be a woman. It was appropriate military attire. Also, many fashions, or rather, the distinction between fashions, are culturally conditioned. Scotsmen wear kilts.
-
I don't think St Joan of Arc, or anyone with whom she was associated, was of the impression that she was in any way not a woman, or not wanting to be a woman. It was appropriate military attire. Also, many fashions, or rather, the distinction between fashions, are culturally conditioned. Scotsmen wear kilts.
My point exactly.
I was disputing DL:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"
-
My point exactly.
I was disputing DL:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"
I stick with what I said. You referred specifically to transsɛҳuąƖs and transgenders. The former are sɛҳuąƖ deviants, which is why they dress as women. That is abominable. The latter deny their God-given nature and seek to change it. That, too, is abominable. Both are gravely sinful.
St. Joan was not doing that for the purpose of sɛҳuąƖ deviancy. If you want to drag it out into the discussion of people just dressing up in the opposite sex's clothes for other reasons, then do so.
-
I stick with what I said. You referred specifically to transsɛҳuąƖs and transgenders. The former are sɛҳuąƖ deviants, which is why they dress as women. That is abominable. The latter deny their God-given nature and seek to change it. That, too, is abominable. Both are gravely sinful.
St. Joan was not doing that for the purpose of sɛҳuąƖ deviancy. If you want to drag it out into the discussion of people just dressing up in the opposite sex's clothes for other reasons, then do so.
That is not what you said or referred to:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"
-
That is not what you said or referred to:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"
No, that's what I was referring to. You're the one defending the tranny lifestyle as not mortally sinful here. Increasing the font of your quote of me doesn't change that I firmly believe it is gravely evil, a mortal sin; supported by Scripture.
That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)
I don't see how it isn't mortally sinful. It's a grave act against human nature. We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.
Both transgenderism and transsɛҳuąƖism are both mortally sinful since they defile human nature.
St. Ambrose on Deut. 22:5:
If you consider it truly, there is an incongruity that nature itself abhors. For why, man, do you not want to appear to be what you were born as? Why do you put on a strange guise? Why do you ape a woman? Or why do you, woman, ape a man? Nature arrays each sex with its own garments. Men and women have different customs, different complexions, gestures and gaits, different sorts of strength, different voices.
Haydock's commentary on Deut. 22:5:
Some take this literally, as the contrary practice is contrary to decency, and might be attended with very pernicious consequences. All know what noise was occasioned by the action of Clodius, who put on women's apparel, that he might be present with the Roman ladies at the feast of the good goddess. Yet others think that Moses here forbids some superstitious practice. St. Ambrose (ep. 69,) remarks, that in some of the mysteries of the idols, it was requisite for those present to change clothes in this manner, sacrum putatur. Lucian testifies, that men put on women's clothes at the feasts of Bacchus. They did the like in those of Venus, while the women took men's clothes in the festivals of Mars. (Jul. Hirmic. c. 4.) (Maimonides) In the East, people honoured the moon, to which they attributed both sexes, and Venus in like manner. Josephus ( iv. 8,) believes that women are here prohibited to engage in warfare. Hebrew, "the vessels (armour) of man shall not be upon a woman. "Semiramis gained a great name by her martial exploits, and commanded all her subjects to dress like herself. (Justin., i) The Amazons were likewise very famous in war, and it is said that half the army of Bacchus was composed of women. Alb. Gentil maintains that Moses here condemns an abominable crime, which he did not wish to mention, at which the Book of Wisdom hints, (chap. xiv. 26,) and which St. Paul condemns more explicitly, Romans i. 26. Moses had already denounced death against the perpetrators of it; and surely the manner in which he now speaks, seems to forbid something more than simply putting on the garments of the other sex, for he (Calmet) Yet that disorderly conduct deserved to be reprobated in strong terms, (Haydock) when it was not excused by some necessity or proper motive, such as actuated some holy virgins, St. Theodora (Tirinus)
^Bolded here referring to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and sɛҳuąƖ perversion, rather than simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex (in St. Joan's case).
-
Thread title fixed, I win and discussion over???
Sure, feel free to fix thread title.
-
No, that's what I was referring to. You're the one defending the tranny lifestyle as not mortally sinful here. Increasing the font of your quote of me doesn't change that I firmly believe it is gravely evil, a mortal sin; supported by Scripture.
St. Ambrose on Deut. 22:5:
Haydock's commentary on Deut. 22:5:
^Bolded here referring to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and sɛҳuąƖ perversion, rather than simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex (in St. Joan's case).
Thank you for the information.
Font size was not of my doing.