FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? (/showthread.php?tid=42231)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 08:21 PM)Bearded Man Wrote: I read this interesting thread while puffing on my pipe  :pipe:

On your bubble pipe like the icon, or a real pipe?  :)


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bearded Man - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 08:24 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 08:21 PM)Bearded Man Wrote: I read this interesting thread while puffing on my pipe  :pipe:

On your bubble pipe like the icon, or a real pipe?  :)

A real pipe  ;D


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Nic - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 05:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 05:31 PM)Nic Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 12:22 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 12:18 PM)CanadianCatholic Wrote: Why don't you ask a priest? I don't think anyone on here is qualified to to conclusively answer that question

Many people here apparently consider themselves qualified to state that smoking is not a sin.  I am interested in their reasoning.

Here's reasoning for you - THE CHURCH HAS NEVER DEFINED SMOKING AS A SIN!  Also, more than one orthodox priest has told me that smoking was not a sin, if that means anything to you.  If smoking was a sin, then why have popes, bishops and priests, both pre and post conciliar - SMOKE!?  Shouldn't they know better if it was a sin?  Also, to declare that the new "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is authoritative is bogus - especially when there are contradictions with previous, pre-conciliar catechisms.  It all comes down to which "brand" of Catholicism you choose - and it is extremely obvious from your many, many posts on this forum that you and I are not of the same brand at all.

I hope this post ends this thread.

The Church has defined excessive smoking as a sin but not gone into detail about what that means.  It is reasonable for the faithful to try to understand how to recognize what is excessive by applying traditional principles of Catholic moral theology.  One of the factors involved in determining what is excessive is knowing how much harm one does to oneself by smoking.  Since the knowledge available on this subject has changed over time, we can expect the understanding of what is excessive to have changed.

I choose the brand of Catholicism that accepts that the Pope (not Nic) is the one who declares what is authoritative teaching of the Church.  Pope John Paul II wrote in Fidei Depositum:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

Feel free to stop participating in this thread at any time you wish.

So which one's true then, Jayne - John Paul's Catechism or the Catechism of Trent, or the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism - because John Paul's Modernist catechism has glaring differences with each of those, yet the latter three are all in accord with each other.  So, you see, one declares Catholicism mixed with the new religion, and the others claim just Catholicism.  John Paul II claimed Catholicism mixed with the new religion, and Pope St. Pius X claimed just Catholicism.  Jayne claims Catholicism mixed with the new religion (waving both flags) - and Nic claims just Catholicism (waving one flag).




Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 09:15 PM)Nic Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 05:53 PM)JayneK Wrote: I choose the brand of Catholicism that accepts that the Pope (not Nic) is the one who declares what is authoritative teaching of the Church.  Pope John Paul II wrote in Fidei Depositum:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

Feel free to stop participating in this thread at any time you wish.

So which one's true then, Jayne - John Paul's Catechism or the Catechism of Trent, or the Catechism of St. Pius X, or the Baltimore Catechism - because John Paul's Modernist catechism has glaring differences with each of those, yet the latter three are all in accord with each other.  So, you see, one declares Catholicism mixed with the new religion, and the others claim just Catholicism.  Jayne claims Catholicism mixed with the new religion (waving both flags) - and Nic claims just Catholicism (waving one flag).

I have never noticed any glaring differences, although I have observed that the CCC is not as clear as the older ones.  I claim just Catholicism. 


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - devotedknuckles - 02-15-2011

Jayne and nic recieve and give  blows like a happy married couple
tir for tat tag your it
will nic rise t the challange and finish her once and for all?



Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Jitpring - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 09:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have never noticed any glaring differences

No? Get a load of paragraph 841. Utterly inconceivable before that council of wretched memory, Vatican II. Much more could be cited.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - JayneK - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 10:10 PM)Jitpring Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 09:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have never noticed any glaring differences

No? Get a load of paragraph 841. Utterly inconceivable before that council of wretched memory, Vatican II. Much more could be cited.

That's a good example of what I mean about it not being clear.  When you look at 841 by itself it almost sounds like it says that Muslims are saved.  The following paragraphs explain that God wills all of humanity to be in the Church and the Church is where salvation is, but it is a really confusing way to phrase things.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Baskerville - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 08:24 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 08:21 PM)Bearded Man Wrote: I read this interesting thread while puffing on my pipe  :pipe:

On your bubble pipe like the icon, or a real pipe?  :)

I am puffing on mine right now. Cherry cavendish mmm. To bad Jayne has declared it a sin.

The icon is blowing smoke circles. Like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Bakuryokuso - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 10:35 PM)Baskerville Wrote: I am puffing on mine right now. Cherry cavendish mmm. To bad Jayne has declared it a sin.

The icon is blowing smoke circles. Like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings.

I thought of Gandalf when I first saw it too  :)

Jayne didn't declare it a sin though. I invite you to re-read all 25 pages, with special attention to my posts.


Re: Why claim that smoking is not a sin? - Jitpring - 02-15-2011

(02-15-2011, 10:20 PM)JayneK Wrote: That's a good example of what I mean about it not being clear.  When you look at 841 by itself it almost sounds like it says that Muslims are saved.  The following paragraphs explain that God wills all of humanity to be in the Church and the Church is where salvation is, but it is a really confusing way to phrase things.

Yes. Such studied ambiguity was an essential feature of Vatican II, and it was subsequently incorporated into its catechism. Of possible interest, an article from 1965:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901776,00.html

And:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/One-Question-Three-Answers.htm

+

http://www.sspx.org/New_Catechism/new_catechism__is_it_catholic_I.htm

Also:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0131-werling-syllabus-v2.htm

+

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/abiguities-vatican2-1.htm