L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
I am talking about our willingness to change our teachings if it is necessary, i mean we don’t burn heretics anymore now do we?
- Status
I
Incomplete
Guest
Disagreeing is not the same as burning heretics. So back to my original question: you say that changing teachings brings us closer to God. Yet you also said we cannot know truth, we can only pray and hope. So I am confused as to why we should change teachings; we really can’t know it will bring us closer to truth if we can’t know truth.I am talking about our willingness to change our teachings if it is necessary, i mean we don’t burn heretics anymore now do we?
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Not all teachings have the same degree of certainty…
I
Incomplete
Guest
That is true. But that doesn’t answer my question. You said that changing teachings brings us closer to God and to truth. I questioned how we can know truth. You said we can’t; we can only pray and hope. So I’m asking how you know that changing teachings lead us to God and truth if we can’t know truth.
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
Oh, now i understand, my bad
, i mean we as lay people can not understand, we can only pray and hope, and like i showed you, i have been told that as long as i do not reject teachings like the the belief in the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus, Mary as the Mother of God, et cetera its fine.“Dear Mr Yuri Foolen,
someone is a heretic, when he rejects core points of doctrine - for example, the belief in the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus, Mary as the Mother of God, et cetera.
Every believer can have an opinion about the faith . But the matter is not the opinion but the rejection of all the things in the creed, we take for granted and thusly believe.
Antoine Bodar.”
Y
yellowbird
Guest
This is a PUBLIC forum… all sorts of people read it. Catholics, non-Catholic… and those who don’t know Jesus at all. What a terrible witness. Not because you are so staunch in your beliefs… but because your tone is agressive, condescending and rude.Lucius
**
Father Bodar is well respected Catholic priest, he is more or less the official spokesperson of the catholic church in the Netherlands, how dare you compare him to Martin Luther!**
I did not compare him to Martin Luther. You gave two credentials for this priest. I merely pointed out that Martin Luther had the same credentials. You can’t just say that a priest who has been to Rome and written books is therefore an authority everyone has to respect.
Next thing you will say there is no such thing as purgatory…
Why would I say that?
I think you are very confused. English must be a second language for you.
I think you should consider if you want to win over hearts, or simply win an arguement.
I
Incomplete
Guest
Just remember, those were “for example.” Note the et cetera. I have not really been paying attention to the homosexual issue on this thread (there are so many threads here on that!), so I won’t comment on if you are rejecting something that you should not reject. I don’t know what your letter to the priest said, either…were you specific with him, or did you just ask if you could disagree with the Church without being a heretic? We see the answer to your question, but we don’t know what your question was.Oh, now i understand, my bad
“Dear Mr Yuri Foolen,
someone is a heretic, when he rejects core points of doctrine - for example, the belief in the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus, Mary as the Mother of God, et cetera.
Every believer can have an opinion about the faith . But the matter is not the opinion but the rejection of all the things in the creed, we take for granted and thusly believe.
Antoine Bodar.”
So, if as lay people we cannot know, then it is safe to stay within the teaching of the Church.
I am old enough to have seen how wise the Church has been on issues where I used to vehemently disagree. That is one reason I have developed such a trust. That is not the same as blind obedience. I tell you that because you have made the comment about blind obedience a couple of times, and I am hoping to help you understand that for some of us, many of us in fact, it’s about understanding what God gave us in the Church and about trust.
I am glad we are understanding each other better.
I
Incomplete
Guest
In this particular case, that was certainly advice that goes against Church teachings. I don’t imagine you can find it again to link us to it? I am wondering if there was more to it than that, because that seems like advice that would not be typical of them.Well the apologists once said that if you have a homosexual co-worker, you should not befriend him/her.
I
Incomplete
Guest
I just read the entire thread, and I am still a bit confused.
What teaching would you change? The only thing I can see you saying is that some apologist said not to befriend homosexuals. If that is your issue, no big deal, you are in alignment with the Church. But in reading through this thread, I might have missed some other point you made.
If you are talking about Church teachings on treatment of homosexuals, this is it:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358:
What teaching would you change? The only thing I can see you saying is that some apologist said not to befriend homosexuals. If that is your issue, no big deal, you are in alignment with the Church. But in reading through this thread, I might have missed some other point you made.
If you are talking about Church teachings on treatment of homosexuals, this is it:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358:
O
october_baby
Guest
But that doesn’t mean we condone or celebrate their lifestyle.
I
Incomplete
Guest
Exactly, for those who do live that lifestyle, and I hope I didn’t give that impression.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
It also shouldn’t mean that we shun them, demonize them, ridicule them, or wish any kind of harm to them-but you don’t have to read here for too long before you see all manner of those things.
F
fix
Guest
Please post where this was encouraged.Well the apologists once said that if you have a homosexual co-worker, you should not befriend him/her.
L
LVCIVS_DEI
Guest
F
fix
Guest
But, there is no talk of shunning? Anywhere.
She gave gave solid advice. We are under no obligation to pursuit friendship with every person we work with. Taking into account various factors is how we all decide who to form friendships with and who not do.
If this person had a spouse who produced pornographic videos would the same advice be ok? What if the spouse headed up a chapter of Planned Parenthood? What if the spouse promoted atheism?
F
fix
Guest
Ok, that is fine. Why must she pursuit a relationship?Say you do not agree with there views, and explain politely why.
I do not think that was her point at all. The person has a responsibility to herself, her family, and her children. Would pursuing the friendship be good for those things? Each case is different.
I just cannot see how it is disrespectful or shunning to not get more involved with someone leading such a life. It is a prudential matter.
F
fix
Guest
No I am not free of sin but so what? How does that make a difference?
It is not arrogant or pretentious or sanctimonious. It is a moral choice. It is a decision to do what is best for me and my family.
You can pray for the person, offer sacrifices, have masses said, be cordial to them, but there is no moral obligation to pursuit a closer relationship.
Do you really see this sin for what it is? Substitute some other serious sin and then see if you hold the same view.
We make these conscious decisions every day regarding all sorts of things and people. It is called the virtue of prudence.
- Status