Really?There is no further public revelation.
God can do all things which are possible. But that doesn’t mean he will. He has chosen to do things in a certain way, with a certain plan in mind. That plan does not include giving us new public Revelation.Really?
What Church teaching supports your statement? Realize what you are saying is that God cannot appear to anybody and say anything. If He chooses to appear at the super bowl and make His revelation to millions that would not be private revelation. Could He do such a thing? Of course He could, or do you know something else I am not aware of?
Hello
The Catholic Church as a vast body of beliefs and teachings that define the Catholic Faith. There is a vast body of writings that, to my knowledge, are not accepted by the Church. An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.
T like what Mark Twain said and I paraphrase. The text is still there but the Church changed. Reluctantly.
No. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Though both Scripture and Tradition of the Church are divinely inspired, Christ is the Word through whom all things were created.There is the Word of God. I think this is contained in and limited to the Bible, as defined by the Catholic Church.
In the sense that the Church is the Body of Christ, no. The Church’s teachings are guided and protected from error by God Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit.There is the Catholic Church, which is based on the authority of the Apostles and the Popes. I hope nobody would confuse the Catholic Church and the Word of God. They are definitely different. I am not saying the Catholic Church supports positions contrary to the Word of God, just that they are different.
NO! The Church is not a work in progress; the Church teaches the same dogmas that it has taught since its inception. While our understanding of truth may evolve, the truth that we teach is constant. Insofar as the Catholic faith embodies all that a Catholic MUST believe, then there is little point in drawing a distinction between the Church and the faith.The Catholic Church is a work in progress. Historically changes to the Catholic Church have occurred throughout the existence of the Church. If you don’t believe this, then what did Vatican II do? I will go so far as to speculate that faith and the Church are different. Like rocks and butterflies, they are different.
The Church teaches infallibly that we should not expect any further public revelation. Is it possible that there may be some?As far as a new public revelation, I believe it is possible. I do not feel that the Church has the ability to tell God what He can and cannot do. What I do find myself thinking about is if the Church can, by any means, do something that will affect faith. Any thoughts on that?
God is the one who tells us his public revelation is complete. The Church is just doing her job of instructing us in what God has revealed.I do not feel that the Church has the ability to tell God what He can and cannot do.
No, they were not burned at the stake by the Church. They were burned at the stake by the civil government, which considered heresy to be a crime against the state. That’s a critical distinction.…I seem to remember that people were burned at the stake for being heretics, by the Church.
Indeed? Perhaps you could provide a specific case in which that was the reason for the sentence?…One of the reasons they were burned was they professed to have special knowledge of God…
Indeed? Perhaps you could provide a specific case?…I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible…
I am sure many of you are much more knowledgeable than me, but I am pretty sure that the distinction between Church and State has changed a bunch over the years. My case in point is the Crucification of Jesus. If the Jews hadn’t got their nose out of joint Jesus would not have been crucified. But the Romans technically crucified Him.No, they were not burned at the stake by the Church. They were burned at the stake by the civil government, which considered heresy to be a crime against the state. That’s a critical distinction
The refusal to recognise key distinctions is a sure sign of sloppy thinking, which leads inevitably to false conclusions.I am sure many of you are much more knowledgeable than me, but I am pretty sure that the distinction between Church and State has changed a bunch over the years. My case in point is the Crucification of Jesus. If the Jews hadn’t got their nose out of joint Jesus would not have been crucified. But the Romans technically crucified Him.
As for the reason why people got burned at the stake, I was taught that in a religious studies class I took in school. My point is that people died for professing a knowledge of God that was not consistent with the teachings of the Church. To state the Church did not kill them is alot like saying the Jews didn’t kill Jesus. Technically you are right, but you are also not right.
Do we really need to come up with such clever ways to deny the truth?..
Jesus and the Apostles gave us a deposit of teachings and such that we call Holy Tradition. If any man/woman changes this or makes new something that was not given by God then it is heretical. Things like Gnosticism and Arianism and Calvinism all are herecies because they teach Lies.Hello
The Catholic Church as a vast body of beliefs and teachings that define the Catholic Faith. There is a vast body of writings that, to my knowledge, are not accepted by the Church. An example would be the gospel of Thomas. I make no judgment if these books are true, or not.
I seem to remember that people were burned at the stake for being heretics, by the Church. One of the reasons they were burned was they professed to have special knowledge of God. I must admit I appreciate the way the Church dealt with these people. Perhaps if the Church dealt with pedophile priests the same way, for the special knowledge they had, things would be different. But, I wander.
Today we are discovering things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These discoveries are historically accurate and do add to our understanding of the life and times of Jesus, the Jews and the early Church. I think most people accept that. It is very easy to read something from the internet, about how some Scriptural mystery’s solution is revealed, and believe it. It becomes part of our Faith. This is a formation of our Faith from sources outside the established Church. It is special knowledge.
Our Church tolerates, even encourages, diversity. You can be a good Catholic and be charismatic, or a traditionalist, or something in the middle. I seem to recall that some people that were labeled heretics did nothing more than read the Bible. Then they used their knowledge to confound the local priest, who didn’t. Made the Church look bad. Any thoughts on this? What would you use for your Faith formation that you are sure would not be special knowledge?