A nice civil discussion of things we share in common

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joannm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pax_et_Caritas said:
JR,

This will be the forth time I have asked this question. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but at least tell me you would rather not say. How long have you been a Catholic?
Click to expand...
FOURTH TIME?
You must have many private exchanges.
I can’t recall your ever asking it until now.
 
catharina said:
The book is approved as an accurate translation of what one individual reported as her private revelations. That’s all it is - and we are not obliged to accept it or support. It is not a presentation of formal theology approved the Church.
Click to expand...
When the Church approves a private revelation it is not approving tha accuracy of the translation. It is approving the content of the revelation by saying that they are not contrary to what the Church teaches.

It is the teaching itself that is approved, not the accurace of the translation.
 
catharina said:
FOURTH TIME?
You must have many private exchanges.
I can’t recall your ever asking it until now.
Click to expand...
I asked it two times in another thread and one time in this one. You even commented on the one in this thread by saying WOW.

Actually, I think that time I only asked if he was a Catholic in graduate school, in order to attempt to narrow down how long he has been a Catholic.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
JR,

This will be the forth time I have asked this question. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but at least tell me you would rather not say. How long have you been a Catholic?
Click to expand...
:confused: What is this, the Inquisition?

JR has posted his life story on this forum many times over. What is the reason and/or motives for such a question as this? I personally find this offensive, at the very least. 😊

This thread is for civil discussions. Let’s keep it that way please.

Thanks.
 
Jeanette_L said:
:confused: What is this, the Inquisition?

JR has posted his life story on this forum many times over. What is the reason and/or motives for such a question as this? I personally find this offensive, at the very least. 😊
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t mean to offend anyone, I would just like to know how long he has been a Catholic. If he told his life story, I must have missed it. No offense intended, and he doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to. If he would rather not say, all he has to do is say so and I will never ask again.
 
Jeanette_L said:
:confused: What is this, the Inquisition?

JR has posted his life story on this forum many times over.** What is the reason and/or motives for such a question as this? I personally find this offensive, at the very least**. 😊

INDEED. It hardly seems one is wanting to offer welcome or congratulations.

**This thread is for civil discussions. Let’s keep it that way please. **

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be nice?
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Sorry, I don’t mean to offend anyone, I would just like to know how long he has been a Catholic. If he told his life story, I must have missed it. No offense intended, and he doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to. If he would rather not say, all he has to do is say so and I will never ask again.
Click to expand...
**It’s hard to think you meant no offense since earlier in this brief thread you stated you’ve found him to be in error many times. (No times noted, just many times.) If you want to engage another in an exchange about the most profound experience of his life, starting with an attack is rarely recommmended. **
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I think these statements are totally out of bounds, and are riddled with the faults that you are accusing him of. There is a difference between theology and spiritual reading. This is what he is saying and all he is saying. Much of what is in spiritual reading is reflective of that saints inner disposition which I think we all agree is not infallible. That which is taught by the Church is. That is where your difference lies. And no, neither of us is saying we are the Church, only members of it, as are you. . We, like you are fallible, sinful humans.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Can you absorb the above from Deacon Ed?
Shall he now demand to know where and how you were educated?
Shall he ask if you’re new to the Church? Or were you gone for awhile?

I don’t know the standard, the baseline, for your exchanges but this thread is civil.
 
p and c - from your post: "When the Church approves a private revelation it is not approving tha accuracy of the translation. It is approving the content of the revelation by saying that they are not contrary to what the Church teaches.

It is the teaching itself that is approved, not the accurace of the translation."

**~~~~~~**

Now, maybe this will help.

The DOCTRINE of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed in 1854. However, the visions of Catherine Laboure related to the Miraculous Medal and the words of Our Lady began in 1830. The revealed prayer to Mary said “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” These words were engraved on every medal and the medal was approved for distribtution almost at once. **However, Catholics did not have to ACCEPT that doctrine as infallible until the Church declared it 20+ yrs later. **You cannot demand that all accept a teaching that hasn’t been taught when it’s based rather in private revelevation.

Get it? If you don’t, then I can’t help you with it.
 
catharina said:
Maybe this will help.

The DOCTRINE of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed in 1854. However, the visions of Catherine Laboure related to the Miraculous Medal and the words of Our Lady began in 1830. The revealed prayer to Mary said “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” These words were engraved on every medal and the medal was approved for distribtution almost at once. However, Catholics did not have to ACCEPT that doctrine as infallible until the Church declared it 20+ yrs later. You cannot demand that all accept a teaching that hasn’t been taught when it’s based rather in private revelevation.
Click to expand...
Good points - thank you
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
catharina said:
Can you absorb the above from Deacon Ed?
Shall he now demand to know where and how you were educated?
Shall he ask if you’re new to the Church? Or were you gone for awhile?

I don’t know the standard, the baseline, for your exchanges but this thread is civil.
Click to expand...
You can certainly aske me how long I have been a Catholic. I don’t consider that to be in any way out of line or too personal for a Catholic message board.

BTW, I tried to respond to your pm, but it is full.
 
catharina said:
p and c - from your post: "When the Church approves a private revelation it is not approving tha accuracy of the translation. It is approving the content of the revelation by saying that they are not contrary to what the Church teaches.

It is the teaching itself that is approved, not the accurace of the translation."

**~~~~~~**

Now, maybe this will help.

The DOCTRINE of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed in 1854. However, the visions of Catherine Laboure related to the Miraculous Medal and the words of Our Lady began in 1830. The revealed prayer to Mary said “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” These words were engraved on every medal and the medal was approved for distribtution almost at once. However, Catholics did not have to ACCEPT that doctrine as infallible until the Church declared it 20+ yrs later. You cannot demand that all accept a teaching that hasn’t been taught when it’s based rather in private revelevation.
Click to expand...
The immaculate conception was always a teahing of the Church, just as the Divinity of Jesus was. It was just not defined until the 19the century.

The Divinity of Jesus - which had always been a teaching of Christianity - was not defined de fide until 325, just as Immaculate Conception - which had always been a teaching of the Church - was not defined until 1854.

When the Church defines a dogma it does make it up at the time. In simply defines the particular doctrine and makes it a domga of the faith.

Therefore, when the Blessed Mother told Catherine Labore that she was the Immaculate Conception, it was not contrary to what the Church already taught - even though the particular teaching had not been defined de fide.

In the same way, if there was a private revelation in the year 250 that said Jesus was Divine, it would not have contradicted what the Church taught - since tht has always been a teaching of the Church.

Now, I didn’t demand that JR accept the teaching found in the book. I simply said that it would be best to adhere to that teaching rather than his own opinion that is contrary to what the teaching of the approved revelation and no where to be found in an approved Church document - at least not that he knows of. In other words, it is better to hold to what is taught in an approved source, rather than our own opinions.

I hope that helps.
 
catharina said:
The DOCTRINE of the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed in 1854. However, the visions of Catherine Laboure related to the Miraculous Medal and the words of Our Lady began in 1830. The revealed prayer to Mary said “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” These words were engraved on every medal and the medal was approved for distribtution almost at once. However, Catholics did not have to ACCEPT that doctrine as infallible until the Church declared it 20+ yrs later. You cannot demand that all accept a teaching that hasn’t been taught when it’s based rather in private revelevation.
Click to expand...
This happens with many revelations. This reminds me of St. Faustina’s revelations. The Church always believed in Divine Mercy. If I’m not mistaken, didn’t St. Faustina belong to a Congregation called Our Lady of Mercy? I know that the Sisters of Mercy have been around forever.

Anyway, the fact is that Mercy Sunday and the image came as a result of these revelations. After careful consideration by theologians the Church may declare and adopt a revelation for public devotion.

St. Faustina’s writings are not official theological treatises, but what she experienced about God’s Mercy was incorporated into what the Church already taught on this subject…

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
The immaculate conception was always a teahing of the Church, just as the Divinity of Jesus was. It was just not defined until the 19the century.

The Divinity of Jesus - which had always been a teaching of Christianity - was not defined de fide until 325, just as Immaculate Conception - which had always been a teaching of the Church - was not defined until 1854.

When the Church defines a dogma it does make it up at the time. In simply defines the particular doctrine and makes it a domga of the faith.

Therefore, when the Blessed Mother told Catherine Labore that she was the Immaculate Conception, it was not contrary to what the Church already taught - even though the particular teaching had not been defined de fide.

In the same way, if there was a private revelation in the year 250 that said Jesus was Divine, it would not have contradicted what the Church taught - since tht has always been a teaching of the Church.

Now, I didn’t demand that JR accept the teaching found in the book. I simply said that it would be best to adhere to that teaching rather than his own opinion that is contrary to what the teaching of the approved revelation and no where to be found in an approved Church document - at least not that he knows of. In other words, it is better to hold to what is taught in an approved source, rather than our own opinions.

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Re the Immaculate Conception:

Until the Church DEFINED the truth of the matter, Catholics were free to question it, to guess about it, to conclude about it, to suppose about it, to debate it about it, to imagine about it, etc… AFTER the infallible proclamation, CASE CLOSED. OVER. ALL DONE.

I assure you that you are not free to dictate your own beliefs to others when those beliefs have not been defined by the Church without a proof that they are defined truth.

I hope that helps.
I pray for you.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
You can certainly aske me how long I have been a Catholic. I don’t consider that to be in any way out of line or too personal for a Catholic message board…

.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can presume that each of us share the same “comfort level” when questions start getting personal.

You don’t need to post how long you’ve been a Catholic Pax et Caritas… I already know…the answer is the same for you for my bro’ JR, for Deacon Ed B for myself for all of us:

Q: How long have you been a Catholic.
A :Ever since you were baptized.

That is the only answer necessary in a “civil” CAF thread.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
You can certainly aske me how long I have been a Catholic. I don’t consider that to be in any way out of line or too personal for a Catholic message board.

BTW, I tried to respond to your pm, but it is full.
Click to expand...
The personal details of your life are not my business.
I’ve cleared my Inbox.
 
I think we can all rest on this issue now. Agreed? Case closed?
Prayers and blessings to all Good night and sleep with the angels
Deacon Ed B
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I think we can all rest on this issue now. Agreed? Case closed?
Prayers and blessings to all Good night and sleep with the angels
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Deacon Ed. The vet just called.
The horse is truly dead.
Have a peaceful night’s sleep.
God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top