Friendly advice

[LVCIVS_DEI]

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.

I send a mail to a priest that works in Rome, and he clearly stated that it about rejection, not agreeing or disagreeing on a tradition.
Someone is a heretic, when he rejects key points of doctrine AKA infallible dogmas, such as the belief in the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus , Mary as the Mother of God , etc.
And i never did that.

And maybe you are interpeting it wrong?
You dont know.

Thats why i send that mail.

And i really think that finger pointing only leads ppl further astray, and When and IF you drive them off its partly YOUR responsibility.

 

[porthos11]

I send a mail to a priest that works in Rome, and he clearly stated that it about rejection, not agreeing or disagreeing on a tradition.
Someone is a heretic, when he rejects key points of doctrine AKA infallible dogmas, such as the belief in the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus , Mary as the Mother of God , etc.

And maybe you are interpeting it wrong?
You dont know.
Thats why i send that mail.

Not good enough. I have already posted several paragraphs of the Catechism to prove my (or rather, the Church’s) points (esp. CCC 892). You have just some mystery e-mail.

The Church infallible in matters of faith and morals. To to further bolster the Church’s teaching that we are not free to reject even defined dogma, here’s 892 again, in the context of 891:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

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"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

As you can clearly see, assent is required to BOTH the dogmatic and ordinary teachings of the Church.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Not good enough. I have already posted several paragraphs of the Catechism to prove my (or rather, the Church’s) points (esp. CCC 892). You have just some mystery e-mail.

The Church infallible in matters of faith and morals. To to further bolster the Church’s teaching that we are not free to reject even defined dogma, here’s 892 again, in the context of 891:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

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"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

As you can clearly see, assent is required to BOTH the dogmatic and ordinary teachings of the Church.

I asked Father Bodar.

And that is talking about Dogmas, not ordinary teachings.
I dont have to blindly agree and nod to those.
My conscience clearly cant, and wont buckle on that issue.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sodomy is not about gay ppl.
That is an evangelical myth.

God did not destroy 2 cities for being gay.

I am sorry that there will be no progress between you and I here. I wish you luck.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

I am sorry that there will be no progress between you and I here. I wish you luck.

Same to you.
I hope you will at least take ST Vincents advice to heart.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

This would be SO much easier in person.

 

[porthos11]

I asked Father Bodar.

And that is talking about Dogmas, not ordinary teachings.
I dont have to blindly agree and nod to those.
My conscience clearly cant, and wont buckle on that issue.

Read again. 891 talks about dogma. 892 talks about ordinary teaching. As you can see, assent is required for both.

Further, no one is required to “blindly” assent, and the Church also teaches that no one can be required to violate his conscience. But what is conveniently omitted is that we are also required to form and inform our conscience, so you cannot merely say, “my conscience says so, therefore no”. You have a duty to first study what the Church REALLY teaches and form your conscience based on that.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, **enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, **rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

If you still refuse to form your conscience based on Divine Revelation, then you are just setting yourself up as THE authority, and that has even less basis than the God-given authority of the Church.

 

[LVCIVS_DEI]

Read again. 891 talks about dogma. 892 talks about ordinary teaching. As you can see, assent is required for both.

Further, no one is required to “blindly” assent, and the Church also teaches that no one can be required to violate his conscience. But what is conveniently omitted is that we are also required to form and inform our conscience, so you cannot merely say, “my conscience says so, therefore no”. You have a duty to first study what the Church REALLY teaches and form your conscience based on that.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, **enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, **rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

If you still refuse to form your conscience based on Divine Revelation, then you are just setting yourself up as THE authority, and that has even less basis than the God-given authority of the Church.

Only if i spoke these things from a pulpit, and i am not.
I am not rejecting anything, i am just saying it needs to be updated.
Like the teaching on usury was.

 

[porthos11]

Only if i spoke these things from a pulpit, and i am not.
I am not rejecting anything, i am just saying it needs to be updated.
Like the teaching on usury was.

The Church will never change any teaching on faith and morals. To do so would only prove that the Church is a fraud and not even worthy to exist.

And no, the pulpit is not the defining line where one is free to dissent or not. The Church’s moral teachings bind everyone. You’re pulling the pulpit out of thin air, where there’s no such delineation in the Catechism.

Deny it all you want, but only a few posts ago, you disagreed with a clear moral teaching of the Church. That’s dissent, and therefore rejection.