And yes i mean the United States of America.
On several threads you have made the accusations that are the same old line about judgemental and such. Can you provide specific examples of all these Americans saying you MUST all the time? Because honestly, I have lived here all my life and have NEVER heard that from the Church. I wish I did sometimes. But it is pretty fluffy over here. So what exactly are you unhappy. The other thing I would like to see you offer is an alternative. If you MUST drives people away, what exactly would make them become more Holy. An example.
You MUST NOT kill a baby in a womb. Vs
You, maybe should not or think twice before having an abortion because some people might think that is not the best thing possible, please, thank you…:rolleyes:
Example of ppl being judgmental:
1: They seem to speak as if you represent the church as officials.
“The church teaches…” instead of “I believe the church teaches”
And it despite what they may say, canon law not as simple as 1+1=2.
2: They tend to get heated and throw accusations filled with spite.
Like i said: I try to be nice and polite but i only get compared to the devil and labeled both a troll and a blasphemer.
And offending me will not help with proving their point. :shrug:
Well come with arguments WHY.
And no, that second example is just politically correct nonsense.
And i mean you speak against abortion, but not capital punishment in the USA. :shrug:
It seems more motivated by republican or democratic politics than by catholic teaching.
I would say that all killing is wrong, and advice adoption as an alternative.
I didn’t see anyone being judgmental. Could you provide the specific post you are talking about? I am having a hard time following you and I am getting some indicators that you may not agree that certain things are sinful. Is this a fair assumption?
No, every Catholic has the grave obligation to learn about their faith, such that each and every Catholic must be able to clearly state that “The Church teaches this” rather than “I believe [but I could be wrong] that the Church teaches…” The latter is relativistic and is essentially the root of all heresies. When one truthfully states that “the Church teaches”, he can also easily back it up with the relevant passages from the Catechism.
As for Canon Law, rarely do we equate Church teaching with Canon Law. Canon Law is indeed not as simple as 1+1=2, as you say, but Church teaching is primarily catechesis, and the normative book for that is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. THAT book is very much black-and-white.
I can tell you straight out: The Church teaches there is One God. The Church teaches God is Three Persons. The Church teaches that the Second Person of the Trinity became Man. The Church teaches that Jesus is true God and true Man. The Church teaches that abortion and homosexual behaviour are intrinsically evil. The Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.
None of those things I have to prefix with “I believe the Church teaches” Yeah, sure, I do believe. But whether I believe or not makes no difference. All those I just typed are the absolute (not relative) truth and I can back up every single of those claims with magisterial teaching.
The Church’s first duty, as is ours, is to the truth, not relativism.
Yes i believe that tradition needs to be developed further.
And that is NOT blasphemy, nor heresy.
It could even be flamebait, but i hope its not.
Either way its wrong. :shrug:
No homosexual behavior is not evil, its just advised against in TRADITION.
Not in an infallible dogma.
And the harder you judge other the harder you will be judged yourself.
And proselytizing is not the way, in any case.
Thats my point.
Plus read this:
Things are not black and white, nor does one size fit all.
Oh, we judge. Not only CAN we judge, but in many cases we MUST judge. We judge objective actions and behaviours. We do NOT judge the state of someone’s soul or say with certainty that, yeah, this or that guy is hellbound.
And as for your little error on homosexual behaviour: nope, it’s not merely against "t"radition, but is definitely contrary to both Scripture and "T"radition. It may not have been defined using the extraordinary formula of Papal Infallibility, but it is indeed part of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and as such, does fall under the scope of infallibility and requires assent of both religion and intellect. The Church teaches:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
None of that is merely “in my opinion”. If I were to say “In my opinion, the Church teaches that…” that would be worthless and I would be exalting myself as the authority. But Scripture clearly tells us that Christ gave authority to his Church, not to us individually. The only reason I believe it in the first place is because the Church teaches it, not because it suits me. If I see two homosexuals in a homosexual relationship, or two heterosexuals committing adultery, can I say they are sinning? Yes, I can, and if my relationship with them is close enough, I must. Dare I condemn them to hell? No I can’t, as none of us can.
And why are you quoting Canon Law? That’s apples and oranges. That section is about penalties in the Church, and while related, they are of a legal, not moral nature. Teachings of faith and morals are coded in the Catechism, not Canon Law. The Catechism tells us what is right and wrong. Canon Law tells us what is legal and illegal (which of course may also be right and wrong).
So no, we are not going to be wishy-washy Catholics. Our first duty is to the truth, not to any one’s opinions or hurt feelings.
No you most certainly can not judge the state of someone’s soul or say with certainty that, yeah, this or that guy is hellbound.
Christ judges the living and the dead. :shrug:
That is a DOGMA created in the Ist council of Nicea.
It is in the Crede.
Sexuality of 2 adults is a private matter.
Are you kidding!? That was 124 posts into a thread where you spent the majority of the time telling other people how horrible they are and how wrong the Church is! 124 posts until someone finally gave it to you strait? Man, you have quite the sensitive skin. In that thread people were extremely patient with a poster (you) who argued against what the Church teaches. But what did all that patience and niceness buy us? A forum for you to pontificate on the Church of You?
You do not have the authority to say that.
The church is not wrong, you are.
Bessides i have the right to correct church fathers if they need that.
If you believe i am somehow a heretic contact my bishop. :mad:
Ahhh now we see the real angle here.
Please, explain to me in your religion how sodomy can be a Holy action? Please please please.
What is the way. What is the way to change hearts without proselytizing? Or perhaps your view is that we should accept evil as not to offend others?
My authority is the CHurch. What is yours?
How am I wrong?
You my friend are in dangerous territory theologically and logically. But perhaps you are more holy and wise than the Church who disagrees with you?:shrug:
Sodomy is not about gay ppl.
That is an evangelical myth.
God did not destroy 2 cities for being gay. :mad:
Sins can be committed even in private. And I do not need to limit myself to homosexuality; I only raised that as an example. The same principle holds for others: adultery, murder, stealing, lying.
I don’t need to prefix any statements with “In my opinion, the Church teaches…” No! The Church, clearly and definitively teaches at all these are wrong and sinful.
The Church’s first duty, as is ours, is to the truth. And truth is not my opinion, or yours, or anyone else’s. Truth is absolute, and truth is one.
You think that you have to blindly agree with tradition and you dont.
No i am just saying tradition should be changed.
Bercuase my conscience tells me so, and i have prayed, studied and though about it.
But you should not judge ppl that they are going to hell.
I already said that.
My piont is that i dont have to agree with tradition, only dogma.
Thats a fact.
I checked it.
The harder you judge others, the harder you will be judged yourself.
And spite will only harm, and drive ppl away.
Prove it. Cite your sources. We do that when presenting our points to you; you owe us the same.
There’s difference between "t"radition and "T"radition. "t"raditions can change. "T"radition is part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and is part of divine revelation and requires religious assent. We are not free to dispute things that the Church teaches as part of the ordinary Magisterium.
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
“**and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”**43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. **Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”**44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.