Paladin D Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_...cfm?recnum=1677 Wonder why Catholic.org has a banner-ad for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Wonder why Catholic.org has a banner-ad for them. Lack of research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 The Catholic Culture website has this to say in their "Fidelity" rating examples: The following is a representative sample of the misleading and false information contained on the site. 1. In the article on Confession, the writer states that the only time it is necessary to go to Confession is when you have committed a mortal sin. He says nothing about the Church's command to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year. ... Canon law number 989 says: After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year. The 2000 CLSA commentary has this to say about canon 989: Once that presumption (that one has the use of reason) is fulfilled and the age of discretion is attained, if one then should commit a grave sin, the canon requires that he or she confess at least within a year. The failure of the earlier law to make clear that this obligation of annual confession is applicable only in the case of grave sin has now been corrected in the text of canon 989. So I guess OnceCatholic.org's accurately explaining what canon law actually requires as regards to the Sacrament of Confession isn't good enough for Catholic Culture. It seems that this is just one of many things that are good enough for the Church's magisterium (e.g., Imprimaturs) that somehow still aren't good enough for Catholic Culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rev Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 O my gosh, for english for my book report we had to do an advertisment, and I advertised them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Watch otu for those Imprimaturs, it's not exactly a garantee anymore. My theology textbook had one but it was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The CLSA is not an organ of the magesterium. According to this review, their commentary is actually somewhat heterodox. http://www.legallibraries.com/New_Commenta...0809105020.html Catholic Culture's interpretation of Canon 989 is the more natural of the 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The CLSA is not an organ of the magesterium. No, they are not part of the magisterium, which means they cannot authentically teach on matters of faith and morals. However, canon lawyers, and especially doctors of canon law, are specifically authorized by the Church to interpret and explain canon law. This is why they must go to a university that is accredited directly by the Vatican. According to this review, their commentary is actually somewhat heterodox. http://www.legallibraries.com/New_Commenta...0809105020.html I don't see any review when I click on your link, just a general page about the book, e.g., authors, ISBN, sales rank, cover picture, etc. The CLSA commentary is certainly on the liberal side of canon law interpretation, just as the GB&I commentary is on the conservative side. However, I think the term "heterodox" with regard to any of the major canon law society commentaries is excessive and unjustified. Ed Peters, a doctor of canon law who is on the more conservative side, wrote the following very accurate reviews of these commentaries: (Review Number 1 Link) and (Review Number 2 Link) Catholic Culture's interpretation of Canon 989 is the more natural of the 2. Are you saying that Catholics who have not committed a grave sin are still required to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation? There is a great story about a little old grandmother going to confession and telling the priest that she has no sins to confess (i.e., she is only there because of the rule to go to confession), and gets into an argument with the priest when he tells her that she doesn't belong there if she hasn't committed any sins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 If the Church says you go to confession once a year you go to confession once a year. Its a little hard to believe some can go a whole year with nothing to confess. Even if you can't think of any mortal sins, everybody has venial sins it is laudatory to confess. THe priest who told the grandmother she shouldn't be their is negating the great graces recieved in the sacrament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 (edited) Once Catholic.org deserves a red light, they reference AmericanCatholic.org and that site attacks the Real Pressence. They also cast doubt on the physcial resurrection of Christ! Any site that would reference them as a source of knowledge is either ignorant and should not have a website, OR heretic. http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_....cfm?recnum=163 Heretics are everywhere.... Acts 20:30. Time to kick the inquisition into high gear. Ref: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0199.asp http://www.americancatholic.org/News/RayBrown/default.asp http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_...ask=showexample http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_...ask=showexample -ironmonk Edited February 25, 2004 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Go Ratzinger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 OnceCatholic.org - Red Light - Agreed. They should train an elite combat unit of Priests to supress heresey. That'd be Dudelicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 That'd be Dudelicious. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 If the Church says you go to confession once a year you go to confession once a year. But the point is that the Church doesn't say that. Canon law, as explained by the canon lawyers and doctors of canon law uniquely authorized by the Church to interpret canon law, says that this rule only applies to those who have committed grave sin. And Catholic Culture has taken it upon themselves not only to "correct" the Church's requirement in this regard, but to accuse those who expound the Church's actual rule as being unfaithful. Such hubris boggles my mind. Its a little hard to believe some can go a whole year with nothing to confess. It's hard for me to believe that many can go for a whole year without committing a mortal sin, but I have no trouble believing that some can. Especially someone well on in years, whose life consists of the same routine day after day, with a large part of it spent in Church. It kind of reminds me of my own grandmother. Even if you can't think of any mortal sins, everybody has venial sins it is laudatory to confess. This is very true, but this isn't the issue at hand, which is what is the minimum standard set by canon law. Canon law also says that it is laudatory to fast more than just one hour prior to communion, but that is no excuse to excoriate someone for saying that the Church requires a one hour fast only. THe priest who told the grandmother she shouldn't be their is negating the great graces recieved in the sacrament. This is more of an urban Church legend than an actual event, but in the story the grandmother won't confess any sins, so the priest is left without any recourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 They should train an elite combat unit of Priests to supress heresey. The combat unit should start with Catholic Culture. Their claim that their website repesents the Church's magisterium while Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., and Bishop Kenneth E. Untener do not represent the Church's magisterium is utter heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Time to kick the inquisition into high gear. Ref: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0199.asp Let's take these one by one. Can anyone who feels that they know more than the bishop who authorized the Imprimatur for this article explain what about the article is unfaithful to the magisterium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now