KnightofChrist Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I think that in situations in which a person is not culpable for rejecting a teaching of the Church, they remain within the Church. But is is possible to cut oneself off from the Church by rejecting doctrines that we are obliged to accept. Yes, an example of that could be a person who was improperly taught a certain teaching, and rejected that teaching based on the erroneous way it was taught to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I think that in situations in which a person is not culpable for rejecting a teaching of the Church, they remain within the Church. But is is possible to cut oneself off from the Church by rejecting doctrines that we are obliged to accept. Does this mean all Catholics are obliged to be anti-capitalist, considering usury has historically been considered a grave sin? Are all capitalist Catholics not in communion with the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Does this mean all Catholics are obliged to be anti-capitalist, considering usury has historically been considered a grave sin? Are all capitalist Catholics not in communion with the Church? If people know that they believe some against Church teaching and choose to believe it anyhow, it has the potential to cut them off from the Church. In my experience, capitalist Catholics believe their position is consistent with Church teaching. (I have not studied the question enough to know whether this is actually the case.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The cool thing about Catholicism is that you make it what you want it to be. So you don't believe the Son is consubstantial with the Father? Well no worries, you don't have to. It's a very diverse religion, with differing view points and a wide array of practices. So let's hold hands and sing praises for our new church and religion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The cool thing about Catholicism is that you make it what you want it to be. So you don't believe the Son is consubstantial with the Father? Well no worries, you don't have to. It's a very diverse religion, with differing view points and a wide array of practices. So let's hold hands and sing praises for our new church and religion! A very unhelpful reductio ad absurdum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Oh for heavens sakes haven't you been reading. The point is that if you don't believe what a religion insists is true then it is dishonest and/or lazy for you to go around presenting yourself as an adherent to that religion. This seems pretty basic to me. It seems everything seems a bit basic to you! I haven't seen you type much of anything. You've been making weird posts making lame comparisons about traditions that don't match up. That's different to diversity within a tradition. A few posts up your claiming you studied Islam, and likethe idea that some Christians are basically Muslims, and vice versa. ,Sure the five pillars of Islam are a good basic foundation. But Islam holds their scriptures to be without error, the Genesis myth to be literal history, they deny evolution and advance a seven day creation. But they also reject Jesus as God, it's a blasphemy to them to suggest this. Not exactly natural bed fellows. Nowhere in anything you said have you mentioned the grace and saving love of God. So, yeah, whatever, Why is it people who are converts, or gone back to find themselves on an RCIA course, sometimes end up sounding like nut jobs. It's like listening to robotic fundamentalists at times. Why tell people what to believe and what doctrines they are failing on and so on. I'm a bit lost what is exactly expected to be acheived by acting in this way, aside from making people more turned off. Maybe that's the aim? Sure, Jesus spent his time sitting down teaching his disciples and the people doctrines to believe. Hang on .... Maybe people should leave preaching and doctrine teaching to people with more training and a higher pay grade, for the love of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 for the love of God. wats that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) wats that Something not found on this forum? We have gotten so Pharisee up in here. Edited June 24, 2014 by John Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Nowhere in anything you said have you mentioned the grace and saving love of God. So, yeah, whatever, Why is it people who are converts, or gone back to find themselves on an RCIA course, sometimes end up sounding like nut jobs. It's like listening to robotic fundamentalists at times. Why tell people what to believe and what doctrines they are failing on and so on. I'm a bit lost what is exactly expected to be acheived by acting in this way, aside from making people more turned off. Maybe that's the aim? Sure, Jesus spent his time sitting down teaching his disciples and the people doctrines to believe. Hang on .... Maybe people should leave preaching and doctrine teaching to people with more training and a higher pay grade, for the love of God. Somehow your experience of the grace and saving love of God has not been enough to show you that there is something wrong with calling people nutjobs and robotic fundamentalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Something not found on this forum? We have gotten so Pharisee up in here. I was thinking the same thing but I didnt want to mention it for fear of getting stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 Something not found on this forum? We have gotten so Pharisee up in here. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being hypocrites, i.e. people who say they are one thing but do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Asik Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Interesting how you assert that with an air of infallible dogmatism. Let's just say those dates are debatable, I'm personally convinced those texts were written much earlier, but with out getting into a debate on dating let me point out that even if you were right, the scope of those texts would not expect us to believe Mary would be mentioned. For the Gospels this reason is obvious, they end post resurrection when Mary was still alive. As for Acts, it focuses on Paul's ministry and ends with his arrest and trial at Rome, which would have been circa 60 AD. If Mary was a typical Jewish girl betrothed in her teens, it's still conceivable that she was alive after Acts conclusion. I just cited numbers from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html . It's true though that some date the composition to as early as 66 A.D., while some date it after 90. Wikipedia has different information as well. I don't know what you have in mind by "much earlier" though. In any case, I don't dispute that the absence of mention of Mary's Assumption in the Gospel is not an argument against it (that's a lot of negatives), but it remains that there's no direct scriptural support for it. Even if it may be argued that some allegorical passage in Revelation may be interpreted as alluding to the bodily presence of Mary in Heaven, clearly that's not what the dogma is based on - it's just an appearance of scriptural support. At that rate you could justify any possible interpretation of Scripture as dogma. You can't equate the transubstantiation with that as Jesus clearly said "this bread is my body", "this wine is my blood", and in other instances very explicitely mentioned eating his body and drinking his blood, so the doctrine is wholly there in the words of the Jesus: "transubstantiation" is merely a very precise philosophical word for expressing the same idea. Whereas nothing like an affirmation of the Assumption can be found in Scripture. Edited June 24, 2014 by Dr_Asik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being hypocrites, i.e. people who say they are one thing but do something else. :bravo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I was thinking the same thing but I didnt want to mention it for fear of getting stoned. Sorry, we're just 'garbage cans' that can go 'screw themselves' 'floppy bomb' 'floopy bomb', God is love! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perigrina Posted June 24, 2014 Author Share Posted June 24, 2014 So the people who expect people's claims to match their actions are behaving like Jesus. The people who claim to be Catholic while rejecting Church teaching are behaving like Pharisees. 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